Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2013

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

[Posted] Phil Ramone RD

 * Support easy for R.D. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  Withholding support pending article update about his death. However, when updated, this would be is a no-brainer RD entry.  Highly influential recording industry figure.  -- Jayron  32  18:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, his death has been noted and the article updated to reflect that, but "The family did not immediately release details" would mean we wouldn't be able to meet your requirements (if you're basing it on the "five-sentence-three-ref" update paradigm), possibly not until it was too late to be posted. Which would be a terrible shame.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are going to have to point to the words I used in the sentence above yours where I mentioned either five sentences or three refs. Because I can't find those words.  -- Jayron  32  18:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well what update did you "require" beside the notification that he had died, which was incorporated into the article well before your comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure. But I never said the words you did.  Certainly something more than the mere date of his death, which at the time I made my comment, was the only indication in his article.  I never, however, used the words you accused me of using, which is odd that you'd say I used them, since everyone could plainly read what I had written, which was merely that at the time I had made the comments, the update was, at that time, insufficient in my opinion.  As I could not predict the future when I wrote that, I would not have seen what the update had become at this moment, for example.  Had I read the update where it was now, I would not have objected.  -- Jayron  32  19:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't say you used those words, I said you were possibly basing on a oft-held paradigm that a certain number of sentences and refs needs to be added. (see WP:ITN/DC where it suggests "but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates)").... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But, you have no evidence in what I wrote that I was doing so. I merely said that more was needed about his death.  Which in my opinion, based on what the article looked like when I wrote that, it did.  So please, in the future, please only object to what I actually say, not to what you imagine I have said.  Because I say exactly what I mean to say, and if I don't say it, I don't say it.-- Jayron  32  19:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, and I didn't say that either. Please re-read.  I didn't object to what you said, either, perhaps a re-read is required, you hadn't made it clear what your requirements were.  Anyway, while you've been banging on about this, I've been updating and referencing the article.  Suggest next time you do similar. I see you've had a bit of a go yourself.  Nice.   The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Wonder what I have been doing:, .  You seem to be developing a habit of accusing me of doing things other than what I am doing. -- Jayron  32  19:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noted your couple of updates above. Or didn't you read that?!  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Perhaps next time you can clarify what your personal requirements for an "update" you would consider adequate are, that would make life a lot easier.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - came here to nominate this. Easily among the top in his field for a long period of time, as evidenced by 14 Grammys. However, article needs more referencing and some info on the impact of his death (e.g. quotes from famous people). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some quotes added, a few more refs etc. See what you think?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice, speedy work. I can fully support now. However, it would be nice to get at least one ref into the "Recent work". --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's now done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Incredible breadth. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Major talent, needless to say. Jus  da  fax   20:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready updated and strong support, apparently. μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If only one of the Kims were here he could declare this ready...again. μηδείς (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support for RD. This is a no-brainer, as said. --hydrox (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 03:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] North Korea declares war on South Korea

 * umm this would be obvious support however wait for more news to come out. they sort of make continuous random threats. this news would depend on how others react -- Ashish-g55 02:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait until tanks and soldiers roll across the DMZ. This is sorta what North Korea does.  It's their thing.  There's nothing out of the ordinary in this declaration that it hasn't done on a more-or-less regular basis since the cessation of hostilities in the 1950s.  At this point, announcing this is only slightly less surprising that announcing that the sun rose in the east yesterday. -- Jayron  32  02:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with waiting. One of these days North Korea will actually take some sort of foolhardy action, and it will be huge news when they do. Until that time, this just looks like more empty talk on their part. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This blurb is misleading. They're doing it for show, like Jimbo appointing ArbCom is. They've been in a "state of war" with South Korea since the 1950s. How about: North Korea makes a series of provocational (or threatening) statements against South Korea and the USA. Or, North Korea threatens missile strikes against the United States and South Korea. Not they declared a state of war, as they've been in that since forever. gwickwire  talk editing 03:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait. Unless troops are moving or missiles are being launched, this is just more bluster.  The two nations have been at war since the 50s so this announcement actually changes very little. 331dot (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ban all such nominations until the shit starts flying. NK just declared (for the umpteenth time) the armistice no longer in effect last month.  That means a "state of war" was resumed . . . last month.  We voted this down less than a month ago. It's not our business to do Kim's PR for him unpaid. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait: Looks like both South Korea and US are treating it as yet another empty threat (CNN), so let's not get excited about this just yet. Maybe their April 1 joke just came a day early. Chamal T •C 05:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait same reason as Chamal - SK is like "Yeah, and?". If violence breaks out, then reconsider. --M ASEM (t) 05:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. Also, Gwickwire has a point...they've been at war technically for years. Better to wait until they do something stupid, as opposed to say. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 12:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * April Fools? The blurb as written is technically correct but very misleading - exactly what the April Fools Main Page is supposed to be. I agree that the latest announcement is not worth posting normally, but as a joke blurb for one day might work. Modest Genius talk 16:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Could support that if someone can think of a good joke. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The blurb as written is a pretty good joke already... Modest Genius talk 20:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * North Korea decides that their 50 year war isn't enough for them, and so decides to start another war at the same time with South Korea. <-- Apr1 joke :) my signature borked :( gwickwire  talk editing 20:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * North Korea declares the start of a second concomitant war with South Korea? Nergaal (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "North Korea goes X (e.g., five) days without declaring war on South Korea"? μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But see,the story is that they declared war, not that they didn't since the time a few days ago. What about: North Korea, in their annual show of their military "might", declares another simultaneous war on South Korea, bringing the number of Korean Wars going on right now to ## :P gwickwire  talk editing 21:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support and Wait - for further confirmation and actual reaction of north korea.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Dar es Salaam Building Collapse 2013

 * Can anybody please comment on this? --Muhammad (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weakest possible support. News sources are certainly covering this, but the state of the article is marginal at best.  The article needs some work, the sources are a bit sketchy, which is odd considering that there's plenty of news sources out there (Twitter comments should not be used as sources, for example).  The article itself is pretty barebones, and I am sure that there's enough sources for the information necessary to expand it and make it more complete.  The deal is, the purpose of posting something at ITN is to provide Wikipedia readers with additional information on a topic they may have heard about in the news, and the current article doesn't really do that.  I'd be fully supportive if the article quality and length and sourcing were significantly better.  -- Jayron  32  03:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can anybody assist in improving the article then, please? --Muhammad (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose . Whilst certainly unfortunate and a disaster for those involved, I can't see any evidence of widespread impact and the death toll is mercifully light. Just not significant enough in my opinion. Modest Genius talk 20:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rising death toll means I won't now oppose this, so now neutral. Modest Genius talk 22:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Modest Genius. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm not sure if building collapses are actually all that rare, but with the death toll hitting 20 I am inclined to support. For what it is worth, the disaster has now received coverage across the globe. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I dont know if this matters but the article recieved over 1500 hits yesterday despite being created just a day earlier and not being linked elsewhere. --Muhammad (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Though with more deaths, we have posted other building collapses previously: 2008 Pétion-Ville school collapse.  Spencer T♦ C 03:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The death count has reached 29 with dozens still missing --Muhammad (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Change to Neutral. While the count has regretfully increased, I still feel it is not high enough to post, but I also feel it is no longer low enough for me to oppose this, so I will change my oppose to a neutral. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I have significantly increased the article. It may need a bit of polishing though --Muhammad (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ralph Klein R.D.
– Connormah (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless there is some reason to assume that restricting himself to regional politics does not impede with him being "widely regarded as very important in his field". Albertan provincial politics is not a big enough field... Kevin McE (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose basically per Kevin. I would consider supporting if he had enormous national effects even though he's a provincial politician, but I'm not seeing those impacts, according to the article.  Spencer T♦ C 22:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He just died a few hours ago so I'm sure some more sources may pop up. He was pretty well-known across Canada for his larger than life personality when he was premier. – Connormah (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reuters – Connormah (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Leaning support - He certainly had at least national prominence... experience suggests that he was a household name at least as far as Ontario for a while. International coverage would be appreciated though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Klein's voice was heard across Canada, and his death is definitely nation wide news. We have a thing above about not complaining when an item only affects one country. Regardless, he doesn't satisfy ITN/DC #1 or #2. --IP98 (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kevin. 331dot (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some reaction across Canada here: - I'd say that he could satisfy DC#2 - he was an important figure in Canadian politics during his time as Premier of Alberta. – Connormah (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "One of the greatest natural politicians of his era" – Connormah (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there really ought to be a moratorium (pardon the pun) on citations from obituaries: the principle of de mortuis nihil nisi bonum leads to disproportionate praise and hyperbole. Kevin McE (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ITN isn't the right venue to propose such a policy. WT:RS or WP:VPP would be more appropriate. For what it's worth, I think that's a silly idea, as many biographical articles are substantially enhanced by material sourced to obituaries. Modest Genius talk 22:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant in the context of arguing for the importance and prominence of a recently deceased person (or, apparently, bovine) at ITN/C: exaggeration is more likely to get published, and should not be considered a balanced, NPOV reliable analysis of careers and contributions. Kevin McE (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Soyuz TMA-08M

 * Support per ITN/R. I think the update is ok, anything else would just overlap Expedition 35. Maybe include Expedition 35 in the blurb? --IP98 (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Question not sure what "using a new faster route " means. Not able to support even the concept of this until I understand what has actually happened, and how we communicate it through the blurb.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think they cut through the backyard rather than going around the block. Like you, I can't support until it is more clear on what a new faster route was in the blurb. Ryan Vesey 19:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Several news sources talk about a shorter route without giving specifics. Maybe just drop that from the blurb, and mention expedition 35 anyway. Manned space flight is on ITN/R so it doesn't need the "shortcut" to clear notability. --IP98 (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So we're just supporting a transportation of astronauts to the ISS? Was this posted last time?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The search for ITN/C archives isn't great, but TMA-03M and TMA-22 went up. TMA-04M had support, but wasn't posted due to update. Since then, we've established that there is no minimum update, as long as the article gets the point across. In this case, I think it does. Three people were launched to ISS, and got there in 6 hours instead of two days. Also, manned space flights are on ITN/R, the discussion to include it is here. There may be vibrant discussions on ITN/R, but this item is there and was discussed. --IP98 (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is a stub, it has a bunch of tables and an info box, and not much else. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Quite amazing that it's path did not cross existing "space junk" on it's new much faster route to ISS. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the article actually technically describes the new faster route. Thue (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Wow, six hours to get to the ISS? Great ITN item! Jus  da  fax   01:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment the "shortcut" is explained here and has to do with a more accurate orbital insertion angle, but I don't understand the subject well enough to update the article. --IP98 (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? Can someone explain why this is ITNR with a link to the discussion establishing it? μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Manned spaceflights are on ITNR; the discussion is here. 331dot (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I originally opposed including routine ISS flights on ITNR, but consensus was against me. Modest Genius talk 14:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Recurring item, and slightly more noteworthy than a usual ISS crew change due to the quick rendezvous. The update is almost there; the only problem I see is the one unreferenced section. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per ITNR; even more notable given the use of a new trajectory to get to the ISS. 331dot (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting. Someone please add the image. --Tone 10:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Richard Griffiths - death

 * For RD or full blurb, I'm very easy on either/or doktorb wordsdeeds 10:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN blurb. A notable actor, and I personally admire his performances, but the notability of the event is based on his past achievements rather than any particular circumstance of the death in itself. Thus, I think this is for RD and not the ITN list. Also, entertainment-related people usually get more room in the news than other categories of people, and I think ITN should be a bit more restrictive in this aspect. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose both Popular and recognisable, but this would be greatly stretching "very important figure in his or her field". Kevin McE (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support ticker only. Clearly a notable actor, but not of the tip-top tier that would warrant a full listing. Being "popular and recognizable" is certainly an indication of a minimum level of notability of his profession, on top of his awards. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD ticker: a recognisable and popular actor, but not to the extent of a full blurb. -- Hazhk Talk to me 14:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposed apparently never a lead, no awards, not the top of anything. μηδείς (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He has gotten awards, according to his article. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose he won a couple of awards for The History Boys late in his career, but there is no indication that he was "widely regarded as very important in his field" as required by ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose definitly notable actor, but not for an ITN mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I was tempted by an R.D. nomination but some here would even have opposed posting Pol Pot's death, so this doesn't stand a hope in hell I'm afraid. Top actor, will be missed, but not ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD ticker - I'd call his awards a good indicator of a notable life; worthy, certainly, of a RD mention. Jus  da  fax   01:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Transcriptor

 * Oppose. Seems a bit esoteric for ITN; better for a technology journal.  If we have full biocomputer, maybe, but not yet. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, article is full of hype and sickening quotes. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Madagascar locust outbreak

 * Usual disaster that threatens to worsen existing famine conditions. As noted in the blurb, worst locust outbreak in Madagascar during the last 60 years. Work on article is ongoing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article is sufficiently updated. Are there figures for the amount of damage the locusts have caused? (I looked briefly but could not encounter any). Then an alternate could be something like: An outbreak of locusts in Madagascar, the worst outbreak in 60 years, causes ________ in damages to cropland.  Spencer T♦ C 02:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this information is known at this time; hopefully more information will emerge in the coming days/weeks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable disaster affecting a large portion of a country. 331dot (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, huge impact and prompting huge countermeasures. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting. Good updates and it's about time we post something new. Eventually, there's a photo as well. --Tone 12:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Post posting support - good call. Jus  da  fax   01:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Italian FM resigns

 * Comment Diplomatic stalemate followed by a resignation after a statement made by the subject at the parliament of Italy. Unusual and rare resignation in diplomatic arena. Notable and encyclopaedic content too! Regards,  theTigerKing   16:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Unplanned resignation due to a specific incident. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with 331dot. Perhaps change shootout trial to murder trial? CaptRik (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed the blurb Regards,  theTigerKing  14:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support on notability. Which article are we bolding? (both?). Agree with the above discussed change to the blurb. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe making both the articles bold would do justice with the blurb. Regards,  theTigerKing  16:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Cabinet minister resigns: happens fairly frequently, and the catalyst for it has not been a major international story. Kevin McE (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Kevin McE. If it was a president/prime minister, then support, but not for a lower echelon commander.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not support listing the resignation of a cabinet member of their own volition without any issues involved, but a diplomatic issue prompted this action. The numerous news stories cited above from varied sources would seem to suggest it is notable internationally. 331dot (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is indeed being reported internationally, but not featured. It is a story with very low profile in those news sites, the equivalent of being on p17 in a printed paper, and therefore it would seem odd for us to give it a much higher profile.  Note where the link stands on the news index pages of those sites. Kevin McE (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Kevin, it would seem the rule requiring international coverage is in the same place as the rule requiring a minimum update ... it doesn't exist. Kindly advise if the facts are otherwise. --IP98 (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor did I say that there was. I thought you were in favour of contributors being able to decide the terms under which they are willing to support a nomination.  I see nothing to suggest that it is more important than anything else that might prompt cabinet ministers elsewhere to resign, nor do I see the international media proposing that it is.  Given that resignation of a cabinet minister is not listed at ITN/R, its importance simply as the resignation of a cabinet minister has never been deemed necessarily to have passed the importance threshold.  If the news media don't consider it important, on what grounds should we? Kevin McE (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If resigning due to how a war crimes case was addressed isn't important, I guess I don't know what is. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if there is a requirement for international coverage, unsaid or otherwise, that doesn't mean the coverage must be on the front page in large text headlines in every news source around the world. Part of the purpose of ITN is "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them". 331dot (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support There is no rule requiring international coverage, I'm not sure where that came from, but it's a fabrication. Big story in Italy because of the resignation, and India because of the trial. This isn't the CIA director resigning for boffing his biographer, this is much more significant. --IP98 (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If nobody has claimed that it is a rule, nothing has been fabricated. Don't try to relive past arguments here, and try to apply WP:AGF.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Significant news of interest to a wide readership. Opposes reasoning fails to convince. Jus  da  fax   19:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If by "significant news of interest to a wide readership" you mean an article getting less than half the readership of Ratón the bull, you may have a point. μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose by itself a minister resigning is far below the ITN threshold, and if the purpose if this is actually to focus on the fact that Italy is going to allow some of its soldiers to face war crime charges it seems even more like a pointy or ideological nomination commenting on the morality of the war, not at all the minister himself. μηδείς (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Morality is not the issue; but how often does a country allow its soliders to be tried for war crimes, and by extension, how many cabinet minsters resign due to involvement in such an issue? This doesn't happen every day. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If the issue is the trial for war crimes that is what should have been nominated. The resignation of a cabinet minister is a fail. μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I ask again, how often do ministers resign due to some diplomatic crisis? This isn't just a simple resignation.  331dot (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They normally resign for some reason, don't they? I am not quite sure how Italy allowing due process against the accused magnifies his resignation's importance. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * support for itn mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the story here is about the international incident, which is both larger and more important than a single person's career trajectory. As such, I re-worded the blurb to place emphasis on the incident instead of the FM, but I'm still not convinced that it should run.  The practice in these sorts of incidents is to run the news after the results of the trial are known, and I think that's what should be done here as well.  To answer some questions from above, there's no reason that this nom should revolve around the FM.  He resigned, yes, but the whole government is in transition, and it's impossible to know if he resigned because of pressure and public statements from the PM, or if he resigned because many others of the government have.  The person making the most noise about this incident in the _international_ media is Monti, and if the nom must revolve around an individual, it should be him.  80.220.123.162 (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

(ITNR attention needed) BRICS summit

 * Comment we normally post the closing of summits, rather than their opening. Formerip (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait and see if any major decisions are made in the summit. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Waiting is not relevant in terms of posting, as this is ITNR, so the mere occurrence of this conference was deemed notable. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An Acronym in Search of an Essence μηδείς (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, but post at end of summit. An encylopedia article is better at talking about things after they've occured. LukeSurlt c 16:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait agree, post at the end. Even if there is no agreement, it's ITN/R. --IP98 (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per above but wait until the summit ends.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, post when summit's over and the article is updated. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support post summit conclusion For the reasons mentioned above. Regards,  theTigerKing  16:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, so it has concluded now. Do you think there is enough content to post? --Tone 13:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support pending update - A highly interesting summit, and the list of attendees is impressive, if confirmed. But that brings up the required work: this article needs updating rather badly before a blurb pointing to it can be posted on the Front page. Jus  da  fax   19:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the mere fact of the summit having been held--a rationale for why this is more notable than suits in hotel rooms would have to be presented. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is on ITNR and as such was judged notable; if you feel it is not notable enough, propose it for removal. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no important decision was made at the summit as far as I can see. As such it's probably another luxurious chit-chat. Brandmeistertalk  23:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply Luxurious chit-chats of global leaders is where the routine existence for the rest of us gets hammered out, so.... --IP98 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Julia Pierson

 * Oppose The Secret Service relatively small government agency, and being the first [fill in the blank] to lead something isn't really notable. If it's the first woman Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia, count me in, but things like this in Western nations are nothing that new.  Spencer T♦ C 15:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Spencer. Too minor a position. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose MI5 has two former women directors general. Not important enough a role to note, nor novel enough that it is a woman.  Kevin McE (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

SNC to assume Arab League seat
Mild Oppose: Given that many of the Sunni-majority Arab states are the ones who arming and financing the SNC, I'm not sure if this is relevant. Perhaps, if the UN recognizes the SNC we could consider posting. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support based on significance and newsworthiness as I can find reasonably prominent news articles about this. Oppose based on the lack of an update as the target article does not have enough prose which covers the event.  -- Jayron  32  03:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is less significant than when the seat was offered to the coalition three weeks ago, see In the news/Candidates/March 2013. Ryan Vesey 03:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, pending an significant update of the article. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This has support if it is actually updated and not allowed to die on the vine. μηδείς (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per Ryan's comment Regards,  theTigerKing   16:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Cyprus Popular Bank

 * 2012-2013_Cypriot_financial_crisis seems to be a solid update while the could use a little TLC.  Spencer T♦ C 21:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this be something like "After being closed for more than one week Cyprus banks are set to reopen and capital controls are introduced". The country might be small, but this is a highly significant event. Not just for the possible repercussions to the Euro and by extension the World Economy, but also because the length of the bank closures was unprecedented, the size of the bailout relative to GDP, the introduction of capital controls in an EU and Eurozone country (essentially incompatible with EU and Eurozone membership), the dismantling of the two largest banks of an economy etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.118.155 (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Vallejos v. Commissioner of Registration

 * Support, very important verdict affecting hundreds of thousands of people, noted by media worldwide. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – huge international coverage of the ruling, especially when it was even posted on the BBC News front page for a couple of hours. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Landmark seems to be a subjective term, so I would remove that part. (Alternative suggested above.) Otherwise these seems to be ready to post; marking as such. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seriously? This is one country confirming the status quo over a relatively narrow section of immigration policy. 3142 (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Affects immigrants of many nationalities (both skilled and unskilled) of HK. Narrow but highly impactful section of immigration policy. Regards,  theTigerKing  16:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support -definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ratón R.D

 * Oppose - He's not people. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We do list animals of sufficient fame, read his article. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The rules are different for Deaths in 2013 than they are for ITN. ITN RD is for people. No trees, no fish, no bulls. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's simply not the case. We listed the death of Knut (polar bear) with a full blurb--and he never killed anyone. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. I even agree with that posting. But if we're going to post the deaths of non-humans, then they better be the Michael Jackson of the animal kingdom - I would need to see an absurdly notable critter to even consider supporting. This one doesn't do it for me. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bongwarrior, can you point me to the "rule" that says animals aren't applicable as of 2013? Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN/DC states that "...the article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death." Perhaps it's not a rule, but it's strongly implied. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO, you're interpreting that a bit too literally. It's natural to type "person" as opposed to species-neutral terms like "creature" or "being". I don't think that implicitly or explicitly excludes non-humans. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think that was written without too much consideration for notable animals. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alex (parrot) is rated B-Class on biographies, which, according to the talk-page is about 'people". In the last 6 years since Knut (polar bear) and Alex (parrot) died there has been no more famous animal than Raton to pass away.  Requirements that he be the "Michael Jackson" of animals to get an RD listing are absurd: from the fact that it was explicitly argued that such listings as MJ's death would get full blurbs, not RD's, to the fact that very few bulls are known to record albums, have plastic surgery, or are ever accused of child molestation--while this bull does have his own biography and video game.  Posting this is a rather simple matter--the animal was top in his field, the death is widely covered (of far more interest than Vallejos v. Commissioner of Registration), the article was a rather good one that existed long before the animal died, and the update is sufficient. μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry we disagree, but that's how I feel. It's fine to occasionally post the death of a sort-of-famous person, I guess, but if we're going to start posting sort-of-famous animals, then ITN has become a joke. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting nomination, the linkrot will be an issue, would hate for this to "die on the vine" (phrase du jour!) if I have to tag the article with linkrot. I note a wonderful five-sentence/three-ref update, so props for that, although, as I said, the attempt at referencing is very weak.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I'll be the first to say support. If he indeed was the top bull in bull fighting, then the animal meets the death criteria. It doesn't say in there that it has to be a human. Why wouldn't we post Koko (gorilla), or another famous animal? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I put the bare url's into citation templates, so the link rot issue is no more. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh. Should've tried to nominate Lolong when he died. That croc is beating (when he died) Raton in page views 10:1. – H T  D  19:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Live and learn, eh?! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not have another chance to nominate a death of an animal outside of Europe (or the U.S.) for a long time. Bummer. – H T  D  19:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The field in which one is considered a very important figure must be of sufficiently wide interest to our readership for that criterion to be of any effect: I would not think that to be the case here. Kevin McE (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose No dog shows, no famous bulls. That's not a rule, but it's my opinion. --IP98 (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it would have to be an animal so famous that its name would be instantly recognizable across many countries. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Where does it say that in the death criteria? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Recent Death Ticker, by its very nature, has to have names that people will know. Say, if Laika was still alive. She gets 1700 page views a day. Ratón doesn't. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm only N=1, but I never heard of the two on the death ticker before they were nominated here. Accomplishments in their relative field aren't always known by those who don't pay attention to it. I never heard of Laika either. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One can't trust one's own judgement, so it is better to use page views. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but page views aren't everything. It's only one factor to consider. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm tempted to support this, but I agree with those saying that this animal isn't quite famous enough in general; additionally bullfighting is not sufficiently popular worldwide for notable animals to be listed here, IMO. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's no bull. --IP98 (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Mir Hazar Khan Khoso elected as caretaker Prime Minister of Pakistan

 * Oppose He will be caretaker Prime Minister only for a brief period of time (until May). To me, it looks like an ordinary administrative act. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I support this in theory, as a change in head of government is notable, but I'm confused after skimming the article; is he actually the Prime Minister, or just an interim/acting Prime Minister(which is what "caretaker" suggests)? 331dot (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He is an interim PM named provisionally "by the election commission after a parliamentary committee and rival parties failed to agree on a candidate." --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Fighting in Central African Republic capital, President flees to Congo

 * Support - The president of a sovereign nation going into exile and the seizure of a nation's capital all seem immensely significant. I'm not familiar with the conflicts that are taking place in Africa, however regardless of the progress made previously, the seizure of a capital city would widely be considered "game changing". YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Very notable event. That first Reuters link was dead so I removed it, but the description seems to be consistent with that of the BBC link. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, my support is for the alternative blurb, since it's clearly better than the one I wrote. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support pending update the last paragraph of "March 2013: invasion of Bangui" needs to be built out. The insurgents must have made some broadcast, or claimed official control over the country. --IP98 (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have expanded the article a little and posted an alternative blurb above - Dumelow (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - This is a major turning point of the war.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, seems serious enough. --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, I agree with the above comments by User:YuMaNuMa and User:Futuretrillionaire. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted. Consensus to post and 2012–13 Central African Republic conflict is now updated.  Spencer T♦ C 16:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Boris Berezovsky R.D.

 * Well according to the Ieng Sary precedent, this should go up. He co-founded a political party.  But the article is in such shape that I will be surprised if it gets cleaned up in time for posting. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment You really see no distinction at all between the Khmer Rouge and the Unity (Russian political party)? --IP98 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * His importance is not restricted to his association with the party. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 21:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite. It's also funny how some have lost sight of the fact that this is called "in the news".  Berezovsky's (unexplained) death is most certainly in the news across the globe.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead story on guardian.co.uk is "The dwarves of Auschwitz" maybe we should start an article? --IP98 (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the lead story on guardian.co.uk is "Russian exile Boris Berezovsky found dead". Perhaps you're viewing a different "international" version which is dumbed down?  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You were right, I switched it to the UK version now it's "Shane Smith, founder of Vice magazine 'I want to build the next CNN'". Thanks for the tip, I like Vice magazine. --IP98 (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Look again: "Police launch search of Berezovsky's home". Cheers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just checked: UK edition now, I dont want to be "dumbed down. It's "Jobs Confidential" and has a little cartoon woman in a dominatrix suit. Don't know what that's about... the British press is really quite good! Thanks!! --IP98 (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. The main headline on the left-hand side of the main page is "Police launch search of Berezovsky's home".  Anyway, this RD has been posted, so no need to continue this pointless conversation. Cheers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh, ok, I see it now, the tiny byline on the left hand side, beside the cartoon dominatrix. Is that what counts for front page coverage in the British press? I know it's a done deal, I just thought the guardian was funny. BBC had it in a big bold block on the main page. CNN didn't mention it at all yesterday, but then, we're all a bit "dumbed down" over here right? A Russian dies in the UK, and the UK covers it as world news. LOL. --IP98 (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "LOL"? Sums it up doesn't it?!  I don't even know where "over here" is, nor do I care. Let's both do something more constructive than argue over the placement of the Guardian headline.  It's been posted, move on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless someone can show how he passes ITN/DC #1 or #2. --IP98 (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, he doesn't meet the criteria. Of course if something else happens it will depend solely on that. --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Very significant figure of the post-Soviet Russia. -- Ե րևանցի talk  21:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Well known globally, an important figure in the business world of the 1990s. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 21:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as a well known person who exhibited importance in the media for a long time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not seeing how he meets the criteria.  From reading the article I see he was a businessman and helped fund a party, but I'm sure he's hardly the only person to do that. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He was one of a number of "Oligarchs" who looted the country after the breakup of the USSR. --IP98 (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support No, I don't think pure evil outranks meh. Of course I will also be very surprised if the nominator bothers to follow through and get this updated.  μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for your entirely unwarranted and unnecessary commentary on "the nominator". The update is that he's dead.  That's what R.D. means.  (Also, unjustified, in the past few months I've updated Pritzker Prize, Toyo Ito, 2013 Women's Cricket World Cup Final, Torre Ejecutiva Pemex explosion, Comayagua prison fire etc.)  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The update is that he's dead. That's what R.D. means. I'm not trying to instigate anything, but are you suggesting that an RD nom has a lower update requirement? --IP98 (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to suggest it: it was already agreed. Kevin McE (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That was far from agreement. Start it over and get admin closure. --IP98 (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason to post outright lies? There is no such agreement--and if you want one post an RfC rather than a BS. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Refer me to where at WP:ITN a minimum update is specified, and then you can make an accusation that such a minimum has not been met. Kevin McE (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ITN. There is actually a whole section dedicated to it! The part that's most relevant here I think is ...while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. --IP98 (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolute untruth: that section that specifically does not specify a minimum update, but states that it is a subjective matter. By all means question a one sentence update (not that that is what we have here), but don't claim that it falls short of a minimum requirement that is nowhere defined.  Kevin McE (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied to you at WT:ITN. --IP98 (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll assume Rambling Man's complaint is a joke, since the article is not updated as of this edit, but still lacks two prose sentences. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain your comment: as of that edit, there was a five sentence death section with four in line citations, more than meeting the example described at WP:ITN as generally more than sufficient. Kevin McE (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Vastly wealthy, and highly significant politically, as a Russian oligarch who then dared to take on the Kremlin. Jheald (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait His death is not In The News-worthy, but if evidence of state-sponsored foul play of some kind emerges, well... 79.75.87.76 (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Candidates up for a "Recent Death" (RD) nomination almost always do not have a news worthy death, but their notability while they lived is considered much more greatly.  Spencer T♦ C
 * Support Update requirement is now clearly met. I think he meets Criterion #2 as a leading and highly prominent businessman. Neljack (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting the diff that it is Ready also helps. μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're getting mixed up Medeis. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "I'll assume Rambling Man's complaint is a joke" - what complaint? what joke?  I think you're not seeing things clearly enough Medeis.  Perhaps take a break?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Acceptable under WP:ITND #1 as a major actor in post-Soviet Russian politics through his holdings. Might also fulfill #2 (once regarded as a very important Russian businessperson) --hydrox (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted by User:MSGJ at 09:47, 24 March 2013 --IP98 (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Israel–Turkey relations

 * Support restoration of relations, with the backdrop of the Arab Spring, Obamas first state visit, and the Gaza Flotilla Raid all seem noteworthy. This also basically ends their Turkish official protest to the IDF raid. The update is good. --IP98 (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The news is that Israeil Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized for the Gaza flotila raid, which indicates but doesn't fully mean that the relations between two countries are normalized. Both blurbs document a free interpretation of what has really happened.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not according to Israel, at least. Yes, the big news that was first reported by most sources was that Netanyahu offered an official apology. It was later followed by official statements from Israeli and Turkish PMs' offices: on Turkey's part accepting the apology and announcement that an agreement had been reached on compensation, and on Israel's part declaring an agreement "to restore normal relations, including the return of ambassadors". The Washington Post article has all these details. --hydrox (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we need to hear it from both sides before we make that the blurb. Formerip (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - need to be at ITN asap.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Now it seems like Israel has toned down its rhetoric: "It's not clear when and if such steps as fully normalizing relations and returning ambassadors to their posts will be taken. Earlier Israel had sent out a statement saying those steps had been agreed upon, but it later amended its statement by removing those points." CNN As this basically destroys this nomination I don't mind if its considered withdrawn by nominator unless someone can come up with a sensible blurb.. --hydrox (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the apology is also good for a blurb, if whatever issues there are with Gaza flotilla raid can be taken care of. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologises for the deaths of Turkish citizens during the Gaza flotilla raid. Formerip (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

What does this mean? What has changed? has an ambassador been restored? If thats the case then the Italian marines' trial in India was more significanyt as threatening a rupture (in light of the "CHOPPERGATE"). These breaks, or threats thereof, are not that unusual. There was no breakageof ties. Its only in the respective ntional medias (im guess hebrew press) and even the explusion of us diplomats by Ven was more imp.Lihaas (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Full support, whatever the results of Netanyahu's statements are, the event alone is significant for all countries in the Middle East and potential alliances. Egeymi (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So, the ambassadors were actually recalled back in 2010, and remain so. Friday's reconciliation has been hailed as a major positive development, but the situation regarding ambassadors remains unclear. Yesterday, there were initially official Israeli reports about the return of ambassadors, but these were later redacted. --hydrox (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ive changed my mind, but perhaps we could link to an article about Obama's trip. He ven got applause for asking for people to see Palestinian plight. Thats a first by a US prez. (israel's strongest supporteR). So perhaps: "Obama makes a historic trip to the Middle East" or somehingLihaas (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose doesn't seem we or the press or the parties involved have a coherent take on what has actually changed other than a general attitude. μηδείς (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the apology, admission of operational errors, and compensation of victims is important enough to be heralded. alt: "Israel–Turkey relations improve after Israel apologises for operational errors during the Gaza flotilla raid". John Vandenberg (chat) 03:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As exected.... The reasons for the apology are not admission of guilt because cahrges against idf personnel are dropped.Lihaas (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb, important and ITN-worthy news item. Jus  da  fax   20:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. Major geopolitical consequence. -Zanhe (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Both blurbs seem to be talking about something that hasn't happened. Formerip (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: So what actually happened here? Was there just an apology? The article says that a statement to normalize relations was removed (something that FormerIP references in the comment immediately above this.  Spencer T♦ C 05:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Chinua Achebe R.D.

 * Strong support This actually seems blurb-worthy to me, not just RD. Achebe's a giant of the field. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was originally going to make this a full blurb.  However, very few details have been released about his death—simply stating that he died "after a brief illness."  Although his death satisfies ITN death criteria #2, the rules also state that the article "must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death."  Since we can't satisfy the 2nd part of the ITN/DC, I've simply kept this as a RD (which needs just a sentence or two). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * RD (which needs just a sentence or two).. That statement is false. --IP98 (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Substantiate your claim. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's actually you who should be substantiating a claim, but since you insist: this is the closed discussion which called for implementation of RD. At no point was it agreed that the update requirement should be relaxed. "The point" was to prevent ITN from becoming "an obituary". The fact is that regardless of blurb or RD, the item is featured on the main page and the update must meet the minimum. If you feel otherwise, you're welcome to propose a change at WT:ITN, but the update requirement currently stands. --IP98 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I didn't know about the arrangements for RD criteria beforehand, so thank you for clarifying this for me. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a section to WT:ITN to get something added to the instructions page about it, since RD is not documented. --IP98 (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Update Needed The article only has two new sentences as of this edit (three if you count "would prove to be his last publication" added as editorial synthesis--but I don't). μηδείς (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's already been satisfied. An RD requires only a sentence or two.  That's what differentiates it from a full blurb, which would require one paragraph. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a few further quotations from the obituaries to show how Achebe is being remembered by major media. The update requirement should now be fine. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no agreement what so ever that RD noms had a lesser update requirement, or did not have to satisfy ITN/DC. The article is featured on the main page and the update requirement must be met. --IP98 (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said it didn't have to meet one of the three criteria in ITN/DC. In fact, I pointed out how this death meets criteria #2.  What I'm saying is the amount of prose required for an RD should be less.  If this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be any point in having an RD section, would there?  Same requirements necessitate the same publicity.  By requiring exactly the same amount of prose, why would anyone choose an RD when they could nominate it in the ITN main section? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See above. The false belief that RD lessens the update or DC requirement comes up so often that it's kind of a canned response. Sorry. I do realize you indicated this nom passed ITN/DC #2, and I'm in full agreement. I support this nom for RD, but not the claim that a lesser update is acceptable. --IP98 (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support RD only pending update. Almost there now. --IP98 (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support You pretty much can't get through college without reading him. μηδείς (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is now updated, and I'd say ready, since I can't imagine opposition to this nomination. μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I got through college without reading him. I wasn't a lit major though. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for recent deaths when updated I didn't know of him until just now, when I saw him described as the "father of African literature". That'll do. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment not updated . Death section still has a "who" tag, and it's one sentence short. --IP98 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't five sentences enough? When did the requirement get moved up to six? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no agreement what so ever that six sentences were required. Let's not invent "requirements" that are unwritten and not agreed upon. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * IP98 seems to have miscounted, and the who tag was absurd--the reference quotes "a source close to the family". It is well updated. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, completely failed to count. Remove the who tag if you want, just shouldn't be there when the article goes up. Looks ready. Nice to have an FA at ITN. --IP98 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD but oppose full blurb as the notability discussed here is overstated. Achebe is great with no doubt, but still not in the category of Márquez, Murakami, Eco, or Rushdie.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready I am going to mark this ready. I think an admin should use discretion.  It looks like there might not be consensus for a full blurb (see below) and I don't think that should prevent this going up now as RD only. It can always be promoted later. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Nominating for full blurb
Medeis stated that the nomination for a full blurb should not go in a separate section, but here. Not sure how to format this, so feel free to re-jigger if needed.


 * Proposed blurb: "Nigerian novelist, poet, professor, and critic Chinua Achebe dies at the age 82 in Boston, United States."
 * Nominator comment: Chinua Achebe is an acknowledged giant of African literature (NYT headline: "Chinua Achebe, African Literary Titan, Dies"). Currently the lead story on the New York Times website and the 2nd highest on the BBC (viewed from the US). As a bonus, Chinua Achebe is a Featured Article, and how often do we get one of those in ITN? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support concept of blurb, is notable enough. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comment above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose full blurb RD was not implemented for "lesser noms", but rather to deal with the perceived flood of death noms which satisfied ITN/DC. This nom does satisfy ITN/DC and as such should be added to RD. The only full blurb deaths which have been posted recently are 2 sitting heads of state and 1 pope . In this case, Achebe is not in the same league. --IP98 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? He's certainly done more in his field than Zillur Rahman did in his. Achebe was the father/grandfather figure of the literature of an entire continent. Things Fall Apart is the most widely read book in modern African literature. Anthills of the Savannah is considered the most important African novel of the 1980s. An Image of Africa overturned the dominant view on Conrad's work. He received the Man Booker International Prize in 2007. He had a book last year which reopened the debate on the Nigerian Civil War. He was clearly not a flash in the pan.
 * Zillur Rahman died in office, causing disruption in the 8th most populated country in the world. The death in office is what made it "blurb worthy". --IP98 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose full blurb. A person with extraordinary achievements in the past, but where the death in itself ("short illness" at the age of 82) is not that extraordinary. Thus, this is for RD and not for the ITN list. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt the same principle would apply to older male has-beens such as George H. W. Bush or Jimmy Carter if a "short illness" finished them off at what would be the age of 88+ The best writers by their nature do not rush a book out every year, see Gabriel García Márquez, whom you might easily dismiss in the same way if you wished.
 * I oppose all former heads of state for full blurb. --IP98 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose full blurb Per IP98 and Mikael Häggström. RD is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. No consensus for full blurb. -- Jayron  32  19:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb. Arguably the the most important writer in African literature in recent times, so meets ITN/DC#2. Before RD, this would have easily passed as a full blurb, and I've always understood the criteria to allow for those at the top of their field to be posted, regardless of how they died (for example, Neil Armstrong - posted as a full blurb - had coronary problems before his death, which wasn't really sudden). Another note is that this is a featured article that fully states his importance with plenty of references and solid prose.  Spencer T♦ C 04:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Armstrong died before the RD ticker was initiated. I believe that only Ravi Shankar, Hugo Chávez and currently Zillur Rahman have had a death blurb in the era of the ticker.  Kevin McE (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And the Ravi Shankar nomination was highly contentious. --IP98 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Dave Brubeck also appeared briefly as a full blurb, and was then relegated to RD list. Kevin McE (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry for the poor example. A better equivalent example might be Eric Hobsbawm (RD era) who died after fighting leukemia for several years.
 * And also we've actually had quite a couple posted deaths: Yash Chopra (illnes but still active ), Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano (killed in shootout), and a few other assassinations.  Spencer T♦ C 23:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb: meeting ITN/DC is a requirement for going into the RD list, so is not relevant as an argument for upgrading to a blurb. The threshhold for converting that to a blurb is the level and breadth of news prominence that the death has generated, and in this case it has been very limited in coverage.  I believe that the posting of Shankar and Rahman also fail such a test and should not have been given full blurbs.  Kevin McE (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * support blurb he is the leading African literary figure on the global stage (in english anyways, and this is the end WP)Lihaas (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Chinua Achebe dies

 * I suggest you add the blurb to the other nomination, there will be support for that. μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Planck (spacecraft)

 * Support but with a different blurb and only once the article is updated. The list of updates is much larger than just the age of the universe. ESA Nergaal (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. As far as I understand, "pushing back the estimated age of the universe by 80-100 million years" is one possible interpretation of the data in the image, but professional telescope-botherers (aside from the authors) have not had a head start on the rest of us, so no such conclusions have been confidently made or assessed yet. Formerip (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support interesting enough for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose per FormerIP Lihaas (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wan't actually opposing the nomination, just commenting on the wording of the blurb. In fact, I would give this a weak thumbs up. Formerip (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment 30-odd papers are expected to be published very soon, which should give some better soundbites. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

[Ready] Pietro Mennea R.D.

 * Support posting to RD when updated. Seems to fulfill #2. --hydrox (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Long-time record holder, Olympic champion, clearly notable in their field. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Needs Update This currently and as of this edit has only a one-sentence update. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - clearly notable in their field.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose though probably futile. Gold at the 1980 games isn't especially significant, given the boycott. We gave Sarah Burke the sour face last year (I don't believe the actions of the past must always dictate the present, just FYI). Lastly, I'm not seeing how he passes the ITN/DC #2 requirement as "widely regarded as a very important figure in his/her field". What did he do for track and field? Sprinting? Anything? We can't go posting everyones favourtie athlete on ITN when they pass away. --IP98 (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's really funny and ridiculous to see someone comparing an Olympic champion and long-time world-record holder in athletics with someone in sport like freestyle skiing. I cannot realize how you can draw comparison between one of the most popular sports of all time and something that is barely called a sport. But we don't need to count votes with so much prejudices over the nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we're playing "guess the importance of this sport": It's really funny and ridiculous to see someone comparing a multi-gold medal winner in a dangerous sport requiring a complex skill set with a one-time Olympic medal winner (in a nearly uncontested games) (with a handful of 'European' awards) in a mono-talent sport like running for 200m in a line. I cannot realize how you can draw a comparison between one of the most intense and dangerous sports in the world with something comparable to chasing after a bus. Luckily it's in the news and not what Kiril Simeonovski finds interesting. --IP98 (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The sport is popular if it is practiced, followed, broadcasted, and receives attention worldwide. The inclusion in ITN depends on whether the sport is popular and not if it's dangerous. Competition events in athletics are followed and broadcasted everywhere, while in freestyle skiing are not. Can you tell me some of the largest media reporting the halfpipe event in freestyle skiing on their pages and others that do not it with athletics? Can you tell me any country where athletics is not practiced and name some athletes from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya and other African countries that compete in freestyle skiing. That's all from me. I don't have time to argue with someone who demonstrates either stubbornness or extraordinary lack of knowledge in sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Luckily, Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. This nom does not satisfy ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But it would be better if you read carefully what the rule states instead of play with the rules. Or simply we should abolish ITN because you don't like the criteria we use to post items.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're talking about popularity then accusing me of gaming the rules? huh? I don't get it. I've asked for someone to explain how the nom passes ITN/DC #2 which is written as "widely regarded as a very important figure in his/her field". --IP98 (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Try "held the world record in the 200 meters for 17 years". That would work for most people.  Track records come and go (as I'm sure you know) so former world record holder who held the record for 17 years wouldn't constitute a "very important figure" to you?  Maybe you have higher standards than the rest of the universe.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Surprising lack of awards mentioned on the Wikipedia article, but every major news source is running a story about this. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support 17 years as holder of record in high profile Olympic discipline makes this a lot more than a guy who won a under-competitive medal. Kevin McE (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready It's clear that the comments are inclined towards posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not ready Minimum update not met. I realize that my objection to this item not satisfying ITN/DC #2 has not gained consensus. --IP98 (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Once Again we have a two-day old nomination dying on the vine, because, although people are happy to nominate it and argue for it, adding a few referenced sentences to the article is too much to ask for. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So fix it. Stop your whining and whinging.  It's becoming a really boring drone.  Fix it.  If it's so simple, fix it.  Or else, comment on something else, somewhere else, as your current style of commenting on the nominator not the article is becoming really, really tiresome.  And in this case, it's really quite an obvious demonstration that your (and one or two others') interpretation of what should be accepted for a R.D. is way out of spec.  This guy's article is entirely up to scratch, and he died of an unspecified disease, nothing more to say, but you reject it based on some arbitrary ruling.  Use your imagination, be dynamic, stop being constrained by a set of fictional rules you seem to think exist.  One or two sentences may be "questionable", but what else would you add to this article related to his death?  Answer that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support a highly notable athlete, one who held a world record for 17 years in track is clearly considered "a very important figure" in his profession. There's nothing more to add to the article as we have no more information.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not ready. The death section has a whole two sentences, one of which is "He was 60." μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, what more would you add? Stop whinging and whining and add three sentences yourself (although that's not actually required)... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is rather sad. As of this edit the nomination remains unready. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready. The news is that he has died, and so his life and achievements are afforded attention, not he has died so the process of his death must be of interest.  Demanding of an encyclopaedia expansion that is not present in news media is not reasonable. Readiness of the article is a subjective judgement, not a sentence count: by all means state that it seems insufficient to you, and explain what you consider to be missing, but don't claim some quantitative standard that is no part of established policy. Kevin McE (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Pietro_Mennea needs more references.  Spencer T♦ C 19:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Truce in Kurdish-Turkish conflict

 * Wait until there actually is a ceasefire; one side calling for one doesn't mean much until the other side agrees. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * support - when the ceasefire is mutual.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] NASA web site shut down

 * It's just temporary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a temporary response to security problems. Inconvenient for those who rely on it, yes, but not significant enough for ITN in my opinion. 'Organisation makes changes to website' just isn't enough, regardless of how big the organisation in question is. Modest Genius talk 15:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Temporary? It's been five days. If you do a search in Wikipedia on "ntrs.nasa" you get 858 hits. That is 858 temporary dead links from Wikipedia into NASA. And this is just one way of linking into these servers. This article in the New York Times: Database Is Shut Down by NASA says this is an online repository of millions of journal articles. GroveGuy (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ITN is not just for Wikipedia users... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For news aimed at Wikipedia editors, try the Signpost. Your comments just make it sound even less important: 858 dead links on Wikipedia for 5 days? That's hardly encyclopaedic information that anyone will care about in 5 year's time. Certainly not suitable for ITN. Modest Genius talk 12:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose A) The news is too old at this point B) The shutdown is temporary C) It only affects foreigners. Ryan Vesey 01:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Bosco Ntaganda

 * Support. The surrender of someone wanted by the ICC is notable. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose He is certainly less guilty that Pistorious until proven otherwise--we should not be in the practice of identifying criminal charges until they have been proven and all appeals have been made. μηδείς (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't a case of simple criminal charges. The list of people wanted by the ICC (an international body) is relatively short and they are wanted for the most serious accusations(war crimes charges).  Additionally, this individual voluntarily surrendered himself for the purpose of going to the ICC; which also is a rare event. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The surrender of a fugitive wanted by the ICC is a big deal, and only accusations of very serious crimes (genocide, war crimes etc.) are handled. Whilst I have some sympathy with the idea of waiting for a verdict, according to our article the ICC has only ever indicted 30 people, of which 15 have appeared before the court and just one convicted (which took six years). I don't think there's a problem with posting the surrender and the verdict if/when it arrives. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - per Modest Genius. This is a significant milestone, and ITN-worthy. Jus  da  fax   07:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Surrendering is notable.  Presumably this wont be a ITN-worthy story again for a while, when the trial is over. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted with a few minor tweaks to the blurb. -- Jayron  32  19:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

James Herbert R.D.

 * Comment According to the wiki pages, your British "Stephen King" has sold 42 million books (a nice total to be sure) compared to the real deal, who has sold more than 350 million. Has Herbert won any notable awards? (Addendum: I do see he has the OBE) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well he did sneak the World Horror Convention Grand Master Award (which was also awarded to Stephen King, interestingly, and Dean Koontz and Clive Barker), so that's one. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral obviously prolific, probably well known in his home country. Stick a paragraph in there covering how he passes ITN/DC #2 and one about his death and support is easy. --IP98 (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly notable in his field. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not mentioned in Horror fiction or Horror_fiction, which suggests he doesn't meet ITN/DC#2.  Spencer T♦ C 00:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dead on the Vine--still not updated more than three days after it was nominated. Maybe we should start giving out a special barnstar ("the rotten egg"?) for such nominations. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a bit difficult to know what else can be updated - no details of his death, apart from the fact he had actually died, have been made public. Black Kite (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I am certainly not advocating that we make stuff up. If no one has commented on him in an obituary it probably argues against him being notable enough for ITN. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's be undergoing constant updates for days, and there are plenty of obits being released. :P John Vandenberg (chat) 04:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are not familiar with the guidelines?  A minimum of five new referenced sentences is necessary for a death update, this has two as of this edit.  Please don't mark it updated until it actually is. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are not familiar with the guidelines? Such a requirement does not exist at WP:ITN. Kevin McE (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And maybe you could sofixit (have a read, note where it says: "When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes") rather than criticise editors with your ridiculous ideas (the "rotten egg"? Please....). For what it's worth, there are obit refs from The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Washington Post in there... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not Ready while this article does have five new sentences in total as of this edit it does not technically meet the death criterion. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't "technically" meet the "death criterion"? How sad it's come to this.  You win, I can't be bothered to fight with your "rule-based" approach.  This is Wikipedia, and despite efforts to meet your "issues" you still argue, to point of pointlessness.  Well done, you've beaten my effort.  Hope you're happy with that.  Just out of interest, your insistence on us posting a "diff" to prove your version of the criteria is met, where is that in the rules?  And can you, in future, explicitly explain where the update fails the rules you're enforcing, e.g. one too few citations, one too few sentences, one too few vowels, one too few [insert made up criteria here].  Because right now, you're making a mockery of this system.   I award you, Medeis, the first "rotten egg" barnstar, for all you seem to have achieved lately is to rot this forum.  Well done!   The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note thanks to all the editors who have actually worked to try to make this nomination work. Particularly Betty and Fergus.  Better luck next time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Pierre Deligne 2013 Abel Prize

 * Comments: This is on WP:ITNR, so I've updated the template. It should be posted, but the article needs a LOT of work. It's virtually unreferenced and has only received a one sentence update. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Both references are dead links. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Zillur Rahman

 * Support blurb pending update. The article needs some work. --IP98 (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as the death of current head of state is surely worth posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, I agree with Kiril Simeonovski, a head of state dying is very notable. --Kylestewart98 (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted by User:Danger at 15:35 GMT. --IP98 (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I went searching for free images at commons and other languages. The image at id. was deleted from en. for copyvio, and the image at bn. is fair use (at best, I can't read Bengali). Bummer. --IP98 (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Blurb only: essentially ceremonial role, has not been a major issue in world news. Kevin McE (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 World Baseball Classic

 * Comment No update yet.  Post event prose is one unsourced sentence in lead. Kevin McE (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm working on the update. Last time, it was only the 2009 WBC article that was posted, not the 2009 WBC Finals page. Doesn't mean we shouldn't follow that this time, just pointing it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support pending updates. This is the only world championship in baseball, a widely played and supported sport. Resolute 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Marking as updated More than five lines at 2013_World_Baseball_Classic. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that in sports championships, we usually post who the MVP is, often with a picture. In this case, it's Robinson Canó. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we have occasionally done that, but I don't think its fair to say we usually do. I think photos should normally be of something mentioned in the blurb. Formerip (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe it's not "usual", but it's not unprecendented. Here's one recent example. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

– Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT blurb In baseball, the Dominican Republic defeats Puerto Rico to win the World Baseball Classic ''(MVP Robinson Canó pictured).
 * Use the standard phrasing please so we don't get the inevitable defeat/defeats complaints. Spell out MVP as the term is not widely understood. There's also no need to repeat the sport as it's in the name of the competition. So that would be:
 * ALT2:The World Baseball Classic concludes with the Dominican Republic defeating Puerto Rico in the final ''(Most Valuable Player Robinson Canó pictured).
 * <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Marking as ready Maybe that's why it hasn't been posted yet? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron  32  15:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Syrian opposition elects PM

 * Support. The US considers this organization the "Sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people". While arguably still less than a state leader in the current situation (would have been ITN/R), the war circumstances makes it notable enough for ITN. Thue (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the internal selection of a political leader for a non-national militant group is not notable. Same as IRA, GAM, FAL, FARC, etc, falls in the same category. Maybe if they hold real internal democratic elections and get UN recognition like the PLO, but until then, negative. --IP98 (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as he hasn't been elected as Prime Minister of a country, but of disputed area with no defined borders and term with unknown length. The fact what the US considers a "sole legitimate representative" means nothing to me since the United States is not the factor that should give legitimacy in the world. No importance beyond this announcement unless the UN officially recognizes Hitto as legitimate Prime Minister of something.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lots of important (in this context) countries recognizes the organization, not just the US. Thue (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody has argued that the organization is solely recognized by the US, but approving legitimacy to somebody or something cannot be given by a country or "lots of important countries". Even if the majority of countries in the world agree that it's a legitimate representative, the only factor representing all the countries in the world is the UN and the issue should be passed therein. Since this is a news relating to the current situation in Syria, something that has already faced a strong division among the countries, using the argument that this is approved by a country highly diplomatically involved in the case clearly demonstrates your point of view. Yet, if we pass upon the legitimacy-related issue, there are so many other things (see above) favouring that this is not notable at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support What's implied here is the formation of a shadow government (or whatever you want to call it) which is a step toward creating a legitimate alternative to the current government. Of course there's also plenty of room for a Syrian civil war sticky next to current news instead. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea with the sticky is sound and there are other ongoing events that will be thus indirectly covered. Regarding the creation of "legitimate alternative to the current government", again the legitimacy for doing it can be given only by the UN since there are plenty of countries and other influential parties that agree there is no need of installing alternative government in the country. Finally, Wikipedia should not be used as means to promote US-centric news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose sticky and oppose hijacking this nom and turning it into a sticky nom. Start a separate thread for that. If done, please be sure to recommend an article which can actually be featured on the main page (ie isn't a massive lumbering mess and isn't a huge list of deathtolls without any context or useful internal wikilinks). --IP98 (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, IP98, I am a hijacker. How'd you figure that out?  The bomb in my panties?  LOL. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand what explosives and women's underwear has to do with the nomination process at ITN. Perhaps you could clarify your remarks? --IP98 (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Being the sole representative of the Syrian people (a status which isn't universally recognized) is not the same thing as being a country's government. 331dot (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kiril and IP98. Representation in the UN is an absolute requirement for a government to be considered official. --hydrox (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. It is a civil war; both sides have different types of legitimacy.  We shouldn't take sides.  This is an interesting development. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] James Ashworth victoria cross

 * Vehement oppose Military decorations are essentially a mode of war propaganda, and IMHO should not be advertised by sources aspiring to neutrality, such as Wikipedia. --hydrox (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Getting some coverage in the UK, but I don't see any in other parts of the world. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's a premature call, since it was only reported in the UK a few hours ago. About six inches below this, someone will post a string of international reports. Betcha. Formerip (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When I initially posted this, I couldn't find any sources outside of the UK. However, they've started to appear now: Calgary Herald, Oman Daily Observer. Miyagawa (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * While I reject the idea that a nation honoring one of its soldiers for their bravery is "war propaganda"(military decorations aren't meant to promote wars, they are meant to recognize actions by individuals), I haven't seen any similar entries in ITN before, such as recent Medal of Honor recipients, so I must oppose this unless there is a history of such entries in ITN. As Muboshgu said, its international significance is limited. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this not unduly exclude the possibility that these things have not been posted before but its a good idea and we should start? Formerip (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I grant that is a possibility, but I am not yet convinced we should start doing so. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per 331dot--which I say as a warhawk. μηδείς (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Similar items to this have been posted in the past (Victoria Cross) and Salvatore Giunta (Medal of Honor) was too (I see an ITN note on the talk page).  Spencer T♦ C 05:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If others have been posted, then I change my vote to support to be consistent with those instances. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A posting in 2005 doesn't count, that's way before ITN had stricter standards to avoid country bias (i.e. Anglo-American bias) that used to be such a great problem for Wikipedia's main page. Mocctur (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Giunta's was in 2010.  Spencer T♦ C 17:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose In world history context this is a small detail. ITN should be for larger stuff which affects many people. Thue (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor domestic news. Mocctur (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only because once we start posting medal awardees, we'll have to start deciding whose acts of bravery are "ITN worthy" and whose aren't, and I don't think anyone here is qualified to do that. --IP98 (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the VC has been extraordinarily rarely awarded since the Second World War, only 14 times in fact (that's once every five years on average). We're not "deciding whose acts of bravery are "ITN worthy"", we're deciding whether the award of a very rare and the highest honour in Commonwealth military is newsworthy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that, thank you. I still have to oppose though, because if we start posting VC awardees, we also have to consider US Medal of Honor awardees, then find out what the "equivalent" award is in other armed forces. It becomes quite a juggling act. --IP98 (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we might as well close this one give the weight of opinion. Miyagawa (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Spencer T♦ C 22:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Toyo Ito wins Pritzker Prize

 * Support once updated. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This item's journey to ITN/R is here. --IP98 (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Seeing as the award is for the architect's career work (not just one thing), Ito's Career needs references and Critical vision needs references and possibly some expansion as well.  Spencer T♦ C 20:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The most important and prestigious award in architecture is ITN-worthy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Most publicized award in architecture, of global scope and interest. There is of course plenty of scope for improvement, but the article is in decent shape after some updates and cleanup done by myself and The Rambling Man. -- ELEKHHT 23:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We have a free picture of Toyo Ito; can we replace the current photo with that? --IP98 (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: someone has added an orange tag (BLP-refimprove) to the article. Orange tagged articles are not normally featured, so this should be corrected ASAP. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a bunch of refs to the article, focusing on the potential biographical issues. I've removed the tag, but it may not be adequate for some, who knows?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO some are obsessed with quantity of inline-references rather than quality of encyclopaedic content. Also the "more is better" ideology rules. -- ELEKHHT 21:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Alpine Skiing World Cup

 * Support pending update I had to orange tag Maze, no sources in the updated section. Even if the sport is not deemed "ITN worthy", then Maze setting a record surely is. --IP98 (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Refs added. Otherwise, we regularly post Alpine skiing World cup overall winners. --Tone 12:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, nice, speedy work! The rest of the career section is still largely un-sourced though. Hirscher still needs an update. --IP98 (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Updates to bold articles are minimal but acceptable (it would also be nice to see more prose in the World Cup article itself), and event is well covered by the relevent press. -- Jayron  32  16:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article for bolding should be 2013 Alpine Skiing World Cup. Formerip (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggested an altblurb with this other article bolded. This also needs more prose expansion.  Spencer T♦ C 18:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support once updated, now that the season is over. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The conclusion of the World Cup in Alpine Skiing is one of the top news in winter sports every year.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] UN official calls US drone attacks in Pakistan a violation of sovereignty

 * Oppose. This is just the opinion of a UN official; if the Security Council voted on a resolution making such a statement it might be noteworthy(I say just voted on because the US would veto any such resolution) or the General Assembly passing such a resolution. This official is not adjudicating any legal case or dispute.  Also, Pakistan and others have been saying this for a long time; it's not news. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Entitled to your opinion, of course, but if it's not news, it sure is misplaced in all those news sources I found. This is the first time a titled UN official in a notable office has led a UN team on a secret mission to Pakistan and issued a statement that the US is committing illegal acts. I find it highly notable as a first-time event, as it ups the stakes substantially... because it means war crimes are being enacted. No my friend, this is, in fact, huge news around the world, whatever you think... or want to think. And the article is quite interesting, if a bit large. Jus  da  fax   09:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The official did not call it "war crimes" which is a very specific term; he merely said it was a violation of sovereignty. Such a claim isn't news as Pakistan has said that before.  331dot (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And as far as I can tell, the position of the UN was that the entire 2003_invasion_of_Iraq was illegal. --IP98 (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per below
 * Nothing new. The UNHRC has been complaining for years.
 * "United Nations Special Rapporteur" != "United Nations General Assembly" (which I would support)
 * The report (or at least the article), cites "US officials" and "Pakistani officials". Needs names.
 * This one is a bit WP:CRYSTAL but Pakistan, due to its internal politics, can't officially support US attacks on Pakistani nationals.
 * --IP98 (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The Pakistani politicians have always been running a double game, where they give bases and accept aid from the US, while saying to their population they oppose the US. Until Pakistan actually cuts all ties to the US, then I will consider permission for the strikes to be at least implicitly granted, whatever they say publicly. Thue (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, documents on Wikileaks show that the Pakistani government has agreed to the drone strikes. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. This is merely the opinion of one man. One man who is associated with the highly political and remarkably biased UNHRC. Resolute 04:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pakistan has now gone to the UN to ask that all worldwide drone attacks be stopped. "One man?" ...facts are facts.  Jus  da  fax   07:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And when this one man's "facts" result in action, such as a resolution at the UN or other legal judgements, then there might be a story here. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - what one bureaucrat thinks isn't news. This is just political propaganda. Jehochman Talk 11:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the permission to conduct drone strikes is implicit.  A nuclear armed country would use their sovereign right to refuse American aid till the strikes stop.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless the Pakistani government does something, or this UN opinion has some legal implication with muscle, its just another voice. If it is an important development, there is insufficient information in the article to explain why it is an important development.   John Vandenberg (chat) 01:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Six Nations

 * Question I didn't see a results section. How does this thing work? --IP98 (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a league table, under the heading Table; the details of each fixture, including of course the results, are given under Fixtures. Kevin McE (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support pending update. Nergaal (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Godsakes. Next we'll be posting British dog shows.  Simply not notable--that or give the Argentine coverage, please. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't imagine why you consider it a requirement, but here you go. Kevin McE (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The notability is not at issue as this is listed on ITNR; if you don't believe it should be listed there, then bring it up for possible removal. Additionally, it's likely we will soon be going through and reviewing the entire list anyway. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious support once updated, including a full prose update. As well as being ITNR, its the biggest margin in a Wales-England match ever (ie for over 130 years). No opinion on linking to the portal. Formerip (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How does a tournament that's limited to six nations get on ITN/R? Oppose – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Same way tournaments limited to one nation get on. AIR corn (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, not the top-tier rugby union competition. The top one seems to be Rugby World Cup. Brandmeistertalk  21:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. If it ever is, "this should not be ITNR" is not a valid oppose for this case. We've posted it every year for at least the last five. Editors who don't know anything about the topic could help out by not voting. Formerip (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose, doesn't seem big enough for ITN. Mikael Häggström (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - since this topic is on ITN/R, opposes based on perceived lack of importance are pointless. The story will get posted if an adequate update occurs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And just so no one declares fraud, here is the discussion where it was added to ITN/R . Also here is an item where it's status was defended. . Not being around at the time something was added to ITN/R does not automatically invalidate it's place on the list, no matter how strongly one feels that it should not be included. --IP98 (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for significance, major oppose based on update. Need a substantial prose rundown of the tournament, article is almost all just tables with no prose synopsis.  Regardless of the existence of the Rugby World Cup, this is a major event and with an older pedigree and great prestige.  This is to the Rugby World Cup what the World Series is to the World Baseball Classic, or as the Soccer World Cup is to the Olympic Soccer Tournament Many people get confused about the importance of sporting events based solely on the purported inclusiveness of the event; have a smaller geographic reach does not automatically make an event less covered by the news, and this is an historically more important tournament.  The newer Rugby World Cup is growing in popularity, and may be significant enough for ITN in its own right, but that doesn't discount the historic significance of this tournament.  -- Jayron  32  03:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since this is a "round robin" tournament, should the updates be for every game, not just on the title-clinching game? – H T  D  05:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For those unfamiliar with the structure of international rugby union, the Six Nations is effectively the "Northern Hemisphere Championship", with the equivalent Southern Hemisphere tournament being The Rugby Championship. European teams not good enough for the six nations (and there is an enormous gulf in quality here) play in the European Nations Cup. There is no official channel for promotion from the Nations Cup to the Six Nations, but France and Italy have both been transferred after they dominated the Nations Cup for several years. No, it's not the Rugby World Cup, but for some sports we do post second-tier competitions. (e.g. the UEFA European Football Championship)
 * Update-wise I think a prose update about every single game would be a bit excessive. I think the section to consider is 2013 Six Nations Championship which is ready or nearly ready. --LukeSurlt c 11:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Calling a tournament like the Six Nations a "second tier" tournament displays a lack of understanding of it; it shows that the rating as "second tier" is based on an outsider's perspective of the sport of Rugby without any sense of the relevance and history of the tournament. Regardless, we shouldn't be rating news events based on how much prominence we feel they should have, we should represent them based on the level of coverage reliable sources give them.  The sports media in the nations so participating treat this as a major event, and Wikipedia should to, rather than creating our own subjective, personal, and unsupportable "standards" for whatever elitist opinion we have over what should be "important" enough for us.  -- Jayron  32  16:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support pending beefing up the prose global "in the news" coverage (even in Argentina!), an ITN/R and most important rugby tournament in the world after the World Cup. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Despite the top three ranked teams competing in an entirely different tournament? :) Support. Listed on ITN/R, major tournament in a widely-covered sport. Could do with a bit more of an update, but not in terrible shape. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  13:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tiny countries, and don't forget Argentina.... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support ITN/R. End of. For those who are opposing with comments like, "Next we'll be posting British dog shows. Simply not notable...", the Six Nations is the northern-hemisphere's top-tier international competition. FYI, there is a northern-southern hemisphere division in Rugby Union. Thus, three international competitions are notable: the Six Nations (northern hemisphere top tier), the Tri Nations (southern hemisphere top tier) and the World Cup (all and sundry). In the Rugby world, the Six Nations and Tri Nations are more significant than the World Cup because they contain only the top tier teams whereas the World Cup contains all-and-sundry (i.e. lower tier teams are included). -- RA  (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support You have your chance to dismantle ITN/R, but since it exists and this is on it then it goes up. AIR corn (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is entirely reasonable to criticize this nomination on the basis tbat is limited to 6 nations.  We would disqualify a lot of events for the same reason. Six Nations may seem like a big deal in some places but in most of the world it gets a yawn.  It is valid to call it 'second-tier' in the sense that it is a step below the RWC and doesn't include several nations that are viewed as superior to the 6 European nations.  IN any case, for now I oppose based on article quality.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are free to oppose on quality grounds, but if you feel it shouldn't be listed on ITNR because it is limited to 6 nations you should start a discussion calling for its removal from ITNR. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clearer, you are free to oppose on quality grounds, giving a brief outline of what you feel the article is lacking. Formerip (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you know it gets a yawn in most of the world? I found references from many parts of the world when adding to the overview section and the sport is played in a lot of different countries. Even if there are yawns the same could be said for most sporting events and many other items posted here. It does seem a bit unreasonable to oppose a ITN/R item because it only represents six nations when we have many events that are confined to a single nation (or in some cases a few states within a nation). As to the tier rational, it is true that the world cup is a step up in quality, but that only occurs once every four years, so the Six nations is in the top tier this year at least. It is also the oldest rugby tournament so has plenty of history behind it. England beat the All blacks comfortably and France thrashed Australia recently so the difference in quality between Northern and Southern hemisphere teams is not as vast as many of us down here would like to believe. AIR corn (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Have done a bit of work to the overview. I think quality wise it is probably acceptable, but if you give me anything else that needs fixing I will see what I can do. AIR corn (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting. This is ITN/R, and 2013_Six_Nations_Championship is a sufficient and well-referenced article update.  Spencer T♦ C 03:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] 2012 Cypriot Financial Crisis levy on savings EC ECB IMF

 * Wait However, the deal levy must be ratified by parliament before banks open on Tuesday, after the bank holiday on Monday.. Neutral once ratified, oppose until then. --IP98 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tentative support. Guardian and BBC don't even mention anything about the parliament - it reads like it is a done deal. I have added an alternative blurb. Formerip (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert in economics, so in order to understand what this is all about I'd appreciate if one-off levy (currently a red link) was at least redirected to an article describing it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "One-off levy" just means a levy which happens one time. "Levy" just means "To take money in order to pay off a tax liability/An imposition of a fine". Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, so it would not really make sense to link it. Thue (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Still, if we won't link to the concept, I think we should have a blurb written in more commonly used words. Does it get worse by writing "one-time" instead of "one-off"? Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * fwiw, I've started Bank deposit levy, and begged WikiProject Taxation to help develop the concept. I like 'one-time'. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 'one-time' is very crystalline: there is no guarantee that it will not happen again: 'one-off' could be deemed to be the same, but to my mind simply suggests no repeat envisaged. But for the moment, it is still only a proposed course of action anyway. Kevin McE (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that this is probably an ENGVAR issue. In the UK, a "one-time levy" would be most readily understood as something that was a levy in a past career. Can anybody think of a third alternative? Formerip (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Pending 5-reffed-sentence update. An unprecedented and portentous move for the EU. μηδείς (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait per IP98. Support per Neljack, but the blurb needs to say "proposed" not "agreed" until parliament approves it. Thue (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The idea that this deal must be ratified is only mentioned by the one source, other sources such as Guardian, BBC, Bloomberg do not mention such a requirement. In any case, this action is already causing a run on Cyprus banks, and has people questioning the safety of deposits in Greek, Spanish and Italian banks. As mentioned above, this is the first time a bailout arrangement has included a loss for bank depositors. Gfcvoice (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * NYT, Reuters. Looks like Guardian, BBC, Bloomberg chose to overlook it? --IP98 (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Major impact on many people. Also, the European sovereign-debt crisis is a really huge thing, so this event is also important as an update on its evolution. Mikael Häggström (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Whether or not it still has to be ratified by Parliament, it is already causing a run on the banks and it thus sufficiently newsworthy to be posted now. Neljack (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support story but strongly oppose the first blurb. "Wiped out" is emotive terminology and implies the money is somehow vanishing into the aether.  Just so that we're clear, the proposal is not to create a huge bonfire out of €500 notes. 3142 (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - a startling story indeed. ITN worthy if we have a well-worded blurb. Jus  da  fax   07:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the altblurb. --LukeSurlt c 10:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article could still do with updating - it doesn't currently give details about the overall bailout package, just the headline-grabbing savings-raid. Also: an important detail not mentioned is that savers are compensated with shares in the bank. Formerip (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support once it is voted into law, and the article is updated. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support many sources are calling this 'unprecedented', however foxnews does mention a similar tax at a much smaller scale in Italy in the 1990s, but I havent found the specifics. See Talk:Bank deposit levy. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 19:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While most of MSM is calling it a levy/tax, the Cypriot government is saying they will compensate depositors with shares in their bank, and this strategy is (I think) a 'bail-in'. esp this: "There must not be any European aid without a bail-in,..". John Vandenberg (chat) 21:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated by at least five sentences as of this edit. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't contain details explaining what the overall rescue package is, though. Formerip (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have frozen the article to prevent you or anyone else from adding further details. μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Very funny. I think FormerIP is saying that currently this section of the article is only a tiny fraction of what appears in the news around the world, which is mostly dumbed down speculation about something that has yet to happen.  It isnt encyclopedic coverage yet, as the Eurogroup package is more than just the depositor levy.  See Talk:2012–2013_Cypriot_financial_crisis for some suggestions.  Please help this article be worthy of ITN - informing the readers of more than just the soundbites in the news. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 23:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with John Vandenberg. It reads like the alarmed reaction of a Cypriot, and is a long way to go. Did they debate it today? The banks are supposed to open tomorrow... --IP98 (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

.
 * Support This was a huge story in the financial press and a fascinating shift in eurozone thinking...(from FT: "A “one-off” often isn’t. Calling something after “stability” isn’t very stable. Saying that something is not a precedent usually makes it one. Presenting the Cyprus bailout’s “upfront one-off stability levy”...") Equilibrium007 (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: There's still cn tags in the updated section. A perfect article may not be required, but at minimum the update we're hanging the ITN entry on should be free of major problems, and cn tags need to be resolved before this is posted.  -- Jayron  32  03:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment according to the BBC the banks are going to be closed until Thursday, I guess to give parliament time to debate and ratify. No mention of lines or riots or looting ahead of the decision. --IP98 (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait The deal was shot down in the Cypriot parliament today. Wait until it is agreed. I think the 7-10% levy should be mentioned in the blurb also. That is the most astonishing part of the deal and what most people are talking about. -- RA  (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Kudos to all editors for not jumping the gun, and seeing out that this is actually passed in the parliament (it was not) --hydrox (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps we can reframe this around the banks being closed for a week. Either that or we wait until a deal is struck. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus seems to be wait until a deal is struck.  Spencer T♦ C 22:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Want to close this and start a new nom when it's a done deal, or just move this up to whatever date the deal passes on? The ECB has given them till Monday... --IP98 (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Better to start a new nom - it can't automatically be assumed that the votes above still stand. Formerip (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do.  Spencer T♦ C 08:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Wind, solar farms approved

 * Oppose. We already have solar plants and wind farms in the US.  Something that's a first like the Cape Wind offshore project might be ITN worthy when it comes online, but this isn't a first.  Is the ITNR erroneous?  I don't seen anything on the ITNR list related to this. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The 750-megawatt McCoy Solar Energy Project. That's huge. The Cape Wind project is 170MW. But like most engineering projects, we post when complete (or in the case of Chinese subways, when it passes some record but is not complete), but not when announced. --IP98 (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose There is simply nothing special beyond this announcement. It would be worth supporting if it were the first of this kind in the world, but this is even not the first one in the United States as mentioned above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is there a specific article for this project? ~ AH1 (discuss!) 03:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing special or unique, or newsworthy, about the project: not of an unprecedented scale. My "local" find farm has had 173 MW capacity for >2 years, and there is one a few miles from that delivering 300 MW.  Kevin McE (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Atacama Large Millimeter Array

 * Support seems like an important milestone for astronomy. Article says it's the largest project of it's type. Significant engineering feat, conclusion of a long term construction project. --IP98 (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: ALMA has been running since 2011. The news story is based around the formal inauguration of the full array, but the facility itself has been running and producing science for years. In such cases, the best time to post would have been first light for the full array, but we seem to have missed that event. One concern that I have is that the article seems to have mostly been written by ALMA and ESO staff and is rather self-promotional, poorly referenced and overflowing with image galleries rather than encyclopaedic content. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Higgs Boson confirmed

 * Note I put the header on this section, but Nergaal nominated it. Also, Nergaal, the template can be copied from Template:ITN candidate if you want a copy to create nom. --IP98 (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * *Question: How is this different from the previous story we posted, and will this difference result in a new ITN-worthy update to the article?  Spencer T♦ C 21:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In the last blurb we just knew there was a new particle (notable enough in itself) with the right weight. Now we have a preliminary result it has the predicted spin and parity too, so we are much more certain that the new particle is actually the Higgs. Thue (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not really in favor of this, but before there was just statistical evidence of something in the expected mass range. These observations (culled from the same data, I understand) are much more specific.  If we should have posted it then (and we did) it's questionable whether we should post it again now.  Given its not sports/politics/trainwrecks I can't say I am strongly opposed if we get a proper nom with a proper update. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, not the same data. "Having analysed two and a half times more data than was available for the discovery announcement in July". Thue (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So, yes, it is the same exact data source, just more stats? Or are you implying there's a new and different source? μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Same data source, I think. Thue (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The proposed blurb looks inconsistent with the link ("...confirm the existence of the Higgs boson"/"All that is conclusively established is that the particle is in the family of bosons"). Formerip (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This all uses the formulations of "hints" and "preliminary", and nowhere do I see a confidence interval. Wait until they have actually have results sure enough to publish. Thue (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Any indication of when it will be published? Abductive  (reasoning) 22:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know :). Thue (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, I've seen multiple sources (damn me for not keeping the links) that say they have said explicitly this is the Higgs, so.. Based on that, I know know what gives me my damn belly bulge! Oh wait, my teachers always told me I confused mass and weight, drat... Still, discovery of a part of physics only theoretically predicted before now, one of the big purposes of the LHC fulfilled now, support. gwickwire  talk editing 22:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tentative support The wording in sources is somewhat vague, but according to CERN press release: "CMS and ATLAS have compared a number of options for the spin-parity of this particle, and these all prefer no spin and positive parity. This, coupled with the measured interactions of the new particle with other particles, strongly indicates that it is a Higgs boson". Brandmeistertalk  10:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Another question: So I see the press release states "...strongly indicates that it is a Higgs boson". So is this a definitive conclusion stating, "Yes, this IS the Higgs boson" (even though the media made these conclusions earlier - Higgs_boson)? Or is this just another step towards declaring it as such? If this is a definitive conclusion, I'll support assuming the article's section about this (Higgs_boson) is expanded a little more to fully clarify this notability, but oppose if this not yet a definitive conclusion.  Spencer T♦ C 22:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose we already posted the original detection of the particle. I don't think we can start posting every time one of its properties is measured, especially when they just confirm what was expected. But it's nice to know that it is indeed a boson! It would be embarrassing otherwise... <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] New Chinese president Xi Jinping

 * Support. Change in head of state is notable.  Isn't this ITN/R?(where head of state is not an elected position.) 331dot (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The President functions as a ceremonial figurehead, elected by the National People's Congress, as set out by the 1982 Constitution. The power in China is the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China. --IP98 (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It's usually, and in this case is, the same person. We had discussions in December about Xi Jinping, checking to see if it was posted. --IP98 (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Found it yes, posted 20121114 when he was installed a general secretary. . So, oppose on those grounds. --IP98 (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Change in the head of a major state is notable, even if it's a figurehead. Most kings, queens, and presidents in Europe are figureheads, but we post them anyway. -Zanhe (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, we posted this guy when he became general secretary back in November.... And no, we don't post the ceremonial positions, just the ones with power. --IP98 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I disagree with the "we don't post the ceremonial positions" statement, we post constituational monarchs all the time (I'm sure King Charles III will be a shoe-in). As a change of head of state this is notable, and this is the superpower country of China so even changes in ceremonial roles are important geopolitically. --LukeSurlt c 12:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * President of the People's Republic of China is completely unreferenced at the current time however. --LukeSurlt c 12:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support position is significant, despite the formal structure of the Chinese government. I've also added an altblurb, to make the point that the President and General Sec are the same person.128.214.198.125 (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. I know we posted the General Secretary appointment in November, but this is a sufficiently big deal to be worth both. Besides, this is the stage which is on ITNR. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fail. Period. Lets add the governor-general of Canada. Prime Ministers of Russia, France and Poland. Emperor of Japan. I can't believe this is going to go up. I think it's time for another wiki-break. Absurd. Totally absurd. --IP98 (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes consensus goes against you. That's just the way it works; shrug your shoulders and move on. As it happens, I would support the succession of the Emperor of Japan, and we've had discussions about the PMs of Russia and France in the past (I don't remember the outcomes). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not vote twice, no matter how strong you feel your arguments are. -Zanhe (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Zanhe, but please do not strike my remarks. ITN noms are not posted by robot, the admins consider each comment made and evaluate consensus. My recognition of this process failure will not impede Jinping's second trip to the front page of WP in 5 months. Kind regards. --IP98 (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not striking out your remarks, only your duplicate vote. Admins are busy people and may not realize that you voted twice. Also, I believe it should be brought to admins' attention that your former usernames are StopChinaNow and Sinophobe. -Zanhe (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again removing your unrequested, unnecessary, unwarranted vandalism. Please do not strike any of my remarks again. You're not exactly inspector Zanhe here, since I mention both those former user names on my user page. I'm not opposing this nom on the grounds of my beliefs on China. We rightly posted his installation as general secretary. There is no reason to post again, and there is no reason for you to strike any of my text. Please stop immediately. --IP98 (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If an admin is too busy to actually assess consensus and instead relies on vote counting, they do not deserve to be an admin. Fortunately, I don't think that that is the case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Reflexive Support I think heads of state announcement qualifies as ITN/R. I would also say selection of Premier Li Keqiang (head of government) should be announced tomorrow and should be included in ITN too! - PAnalyst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.137.5 (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per IP98, like posting that the Duchess of Cambridge has been made the The Countess of Strathearn. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ButI would not have a problem with this in a combined announcement of the premiership selection. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The president of China is more comparable with the monarch of England than the Duchess of Cambridge. However, I agree that combining this with the upcoming appointment of premier would be a good idea. -Zanhe (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. Combining with the premier item would work. LukeSurlt c 20:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This position is still a head of state, even if just ceremonial.  We post other heads of state that are ceremonial (with varying degrees) such as the President of Ireland and the aforementioned Queen Elizabeth II.  The Governor-General of Canada is a representative of the head of state (Elizabeth II) and not a head of state themselves, so that position shouldn't be posted(AFAIK).  If this person was posted when he became the head of the party, that probably shouldn't have been posted(even if the head of the party is always the head of state) until now. I have tagged this with ITNR since it is a change in head of state; if it doesn't fit the criteria, that can be discussed. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply In all those cases it's a different person. In this case the general secretary is also the president. I'm obviously losing here, but I just don't see why we should be posting his installation as president when we already posted his installation as general secretary. No, we didn't post the NK "elections", but we posted when Kim jogn-un succeeded his father. This is exactly the same thing. --IP98 (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Since this will probably go up, it needs the minimum 5 sentence update. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb, and agree with IP98 that the article needs a better update. Jus  da  fax   06:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Updated the blurb to add the appointment of new premier per discussions above. -Zanhe (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support blurb combined with premiership: suggest " The National People's Congress of China names the current General Secretary Xi Jinping as the new President and Li Keqiang as the new Premier." μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Marked ready. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not ready - both bold links currently have one sentence each on new roles. To be posted, each article will need at least a few sentences. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My Bad I had assumed these were updated, but Xi's has two sentences, and Li's has a whole one updated. μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Xi Jinping is now updated. I wish we had a whole election article like we do for other sovereign states, but for the installation of a dictator, this isn't bad. Li Keqiang still not updated. --IP98 (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready Both articles are now updated. Marking as ready. -Zanhe (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And the democratic election in Malta is bumped off after a few hours by the installation of the latest fascist dictator of china. Bummer. Is a DoD image free enough for the main page? The Xi Jinping is DoD and should probably replace the pope. --IP98 (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And actually, when he was last on the main page, just 4 months ago, for his installation as general secretary, the same picture was in the template, so maybe do the same now . --IP98 (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 Srinagar attack

 * Oppose. Very tragic, but (unfortunately) by looking at Portal:Current events, there seem to be other entries in the "Armed conflicts and attacks" sections that can be regarded as worse than this one. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mikael. 331dot (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] R.D. for Ieng Sary

 * Support pending update per ITN/DC #1. But the 5 sentence update requirement still stands, as far as I know. --IP98 (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: major figure in the Khmer Rouge that terrorized Cambodia. -Zanhe (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not exactly widely respected or at the top of some field. μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not widely respected, but widely hated. -Zanhe (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hate is not a criteria for death candidates. Medeis, surely this can pass ITN/DC #1, for previously having high ranking office and definitely having significant impact on the region. --IP98 (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the guy was a(n apparently very corrupt) former foreign minister. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, he was co-founder of the Khmer Rouge which is widely acknowledged to be responsible for the death of between one and two million people. Maybe you can think of other people we wouldn't post who were in such a position?  I can't.  Reminder, this is just to have two bold words on the main page.  I think you've lost the plot Medeis.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Admittedly off topic Dare I be cheeky enough to highjack this RD nomination to draw attention to another below, which has had no support or oppose in 21 hours since nomination, and is due to drop off this page in 8 hours time, but is nevertheless more recent than 4 items currently on the template. Kevin McE (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually updating that article would have been more helpful if you had wanted to see it listed. μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Updated I've added some prose to build out the minimum update, but I'm not very good at it and would appreciate a second opinion. --IP98 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost Updated that's four referenced sentences, although sources 11 and 12 identical. One of the sentences makes little sense, I marked it "clarification needed". One more source and that cleared up and I'd call it updated, but am still strongly opposed.  Neither co-founder of a political party nor a long-ago foreign minister merits a listing under ITN and having profitted from killing a lot of people doesn't score you bonus points. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So you would have strongly opposed posting the death of Pol Pot? What a fascinating perspective you have.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, Himmler-level mass murderer. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] New Pope chosen

 * Support when we know who has been elected. Canuck 89 (have words with me) 18:24, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment it may be pointless saying this but let's remember to wait for the article update before posting. Also shouldn't we give both the person's older name and papal name? And why has? Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not pointless, the template says the article(s) in question haven't been updated. And yes, we should include "real name" and "papal name" when appropriate, and we don't need to include "why", beyond that it's a result of the conclave.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the question is, why would we use "has been elected" vs. "is elected". Ryan Vesey 18:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha, of course. Well it's obviously a temporary blurb until we see the real deal.  If it's a "record-breaking" Pope (e.g. youngest, oldest, African etc) then the blurb will need a complete re-write.  That seems obvious to me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (multiple EC) I'm saying it may be pointless because history suggests someone, possibly a non ITN regular will put it on ITN regardless of whether the article is sufficiently updated. And sorry for the confusion but when I said 'why has' I mean, why are you using 'has' when we normally write ITN items in 'simple present tense' as this page itself says, not anything to do with saying 'why' in the blurb. BTW I found out the papal name should actually can also be referred to as a regnal name, but either way, if you agree both should be in the blurb, I'm not sure how they fit in to your proposed blurb. Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See above. The blurb was a placeholder.  No stress required.  We'll write it once we get some more info, ok?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something along the lines of Someone is elected as the 266th Pope following the conclave and chooses the papal name "Pope X the Y" Again there's room for a rewrite if we get some kind of record set. Ryan Vesey 19:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Once they tell us who Someone is. I presume we'll use his Papal name or does he not pick it fast enough? That was fast. Ryan Vesey 18:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not use "Someone"? :) Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 18:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support only when we have a name It's not the white smoke that's the story; it's the identity of the new pope. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I bet nobody has burnt wet wood in ages. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 18:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a name, so full support.  Snowolf How can I help? 19:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note, first Latin-American Pope, first from outside Europe in over 1000 years, etc etc. Blurb could now be improved.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. We have a pope! The blurb just needs a rewording, and then we're all set to go.--<font color="#87A96B">xanchester <font color="#A40000">(t)  19:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article also needs an update. --  tariq abjotu  19:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Very true, the article needs a lot more sources. I'm currently helping out.--<font color="#87A96B">xanchester <font color="#A40000">(t)  19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Blurb suggestion: Argentine Jorge Mario Bergoglio is elected as Pope Francis, the 266th and first Latin American Pope.--<font color="#87A96B">xanchester <font color="#A40000">(t)  19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina is elected as Pope Francis I, the first Latin American Pope of the Catholic Church. is an improvement. It's necessary to mention this is for the Catholic Church and it's odd to say "266th" and "first" in succession like that. --  tariq abjotu  19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Looks good. Great work.--<font color="#87A96B">xanchester <font color="#A40000">(t)  19:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Unfortunately, the article very poorly sourced. For a BLP this is simply unacceptable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, so let's fix it! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support now that it is official æt<font color="#008000">'ə' rnal ðrAعon 19:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that there is currently difficulty with the name. Someone has it at Pope Francis I, despite all the precedents: Pope Mark, Pope Miltiades, Pope Constantine, etc, as well as Queen Victoria and Queen Anne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.200.32 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do It some admin needs to take initiative and post this, we can hash out the wording later. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My opinion is Francis I is fine as indicating in shorthand that none other has existed. I'd oppose it for the article name, but that's a separate issue. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Blurb wording is not an issue, but article quality is... It is rapidly being improved and should be acceptable within an hour.  No need to rush things. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and been WP:BOLD and added it. I made a judgement call and used the alternate blurb, as it linked to his papal name, not his former name.  I hope I have not screwed anything up in adding it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I support that. It was well udated as of .  We should discuss the blurb rather than fret over pulling. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a process here, and doing what you feel like under the reasoning of "being bold" creates more problems than it solves. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pernickety comment. He hasn't been "elected as Pope Francis", since this was not the vacant position. He has been elected as Pope, and has chosen the name Francis. Formerip (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Image comment File:Card. Jorge Bergoglio SJ, 2008.jpg is under a good licence, and I feel would be better than the current image of the late Hugo Chavez. Cardinal Bergoglio was hardly in the public eye before this and a picture on our main page adds much EV, even if small. Pedro : Chat  20:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done this. I have a nagging thought that we might want a version a little better cropped for the MP thumbnail, but I don't have the skills to do such. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Pull. It is a skeleton. Very few references, poorly formatted, poor quality (at first glance at least one is a dead link, another is Twitter), not the usual quality expected, and should not be rushed just because it is the Roman Catholic Pope. His entire "Pre-papal career" (part from "Cardinal" with scant citation) and much of "early life" is completely uncited. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, then fix it and stop wasting our time. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to be rude. I agree with the IP - the article should not have been posted as is.  It should have an orange tag as a poorly sourced BLP, but an editors keeps removing it insisting that a high profile article shouldn't have an ugly tag on it.  We don't post orange tagged articles on the main page, and shouldn't compromise our standards just because the subject is especially important. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Pull the blurb needs to be rewritten and the article needs more sources. This should not have been posted before it was ready to be posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Should the blurb say Francis I or just Francis? Brandmeistertalk  20:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It says the name of the article at the time I posted it, and still at the moment I'm writing this comment. I personally don't care much if its says Francis or Francis I, but I do strongly think that it should match the article title.  So I would say that, if it needs to be changed in the blurb, then first the article needs to move to Francis I.  And I believe that there are already discussions on the talk pages about exactly that subject.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, article is now acceptably sourced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Aleqa Hammond set to become first female Prime Minister of Greenland

 * Altblurb there's no need to cheerlead a gender agenda here; there have only been five prime ministers, and woman were never denied the vote or barred from running in prior elections. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not cheerleading a "gender agenda", but having a first female leader is generally considered a notable event. South Korea has never denied women the vote, yet Park Geun-hye becoming its first female president was considered notable enough to feature on ITN in December. Number   5  7  17:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal--I'd have opposed that too if I had noticed--you'll see I didn't vote in that nomination. At some point all this just becomes patronising. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Greenland is a territory that forms part of the Kingdom of Denmark, with limited "home rule" (local government, comparable to other regional or state authorities). We do not post heads of sub national divisions such as the Governor of California (population: 40 million), and Greenland (population 50,000) is not a sovereign country any more than California is. This is generally comparable to a small town getting a new mayor. Mocctur (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the title is landsstyreformand (chairperson of local authority), not Prime Minister. The title doesn't contain the word minister. Mocctur (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither does the Prime Minister of Spain, but that doesn't stop the world referring to them as such. As you'll note in the two sources, both refer to the position as Prime Minister. Number   5  7  17:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mocctur. Subnational elections are not ITN/R, and gender on it's own does not establish notability. --IP98 (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mocctur – the gender thing alone does not carry this over the notability line. That said, if we were to post on the basis that the election of a new Prime Minister is notable, I would be in favour of the original blurb. Nothing wrong with occasionally straying away from the "X from Y-land becomes Z" format. —WFC— FL wishlist 18:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but the article is nowhere near good enough. As can be seen from its WP article, Greenland is not a sovereign country but is politically independent in most respects - more so than, for example, Scotland or the Vatican. Very disappointing to see an editor making a slew of unsourced POV edits to back up a claim they have made in an ITNC discussion. Formerip (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose; Greenland is part of Denmark; most subnational elections aren't notable, and gender doesn't make it so either. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pile on Oppose. Greenland is not a sovereign country even if its leader is a Prime Minister. It is an overseas territory of Denmark, a sovereign country of Scandinavia. And the elected being female doesn't elevate it that much, female Prime Ministers are not at all rare in most of the civilized world these days. --hydrox (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, sub-national entity. This is roughly equivalent to the election of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, and we wouldn't post that either (even if a woman was elected). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Bruno Latour wins 2013 Holberg Prize

 * Comment: The article will need more than 2 sentences on the award to be considered updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No it will not. Not compared to the Nobel Prize winner articles posted in dozens, frequently with a one-sentence update. There is a limit as to how much we need to say about a prize a person has received, except for the fact and the reason cited for the award. Further updates on this would merely reduce the article quality. The article is three times as more updated than many of the Nobel Prize winners who were posted last year and the year before that. Bjerrebæk (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, "Each ITN item contains an emboldened link to an article providing a substantial quantity of directly relevant information". Other improvements to the article are great, but the requirement of ITN is content about the reason a subject is in the news.  It is not remotely difficult to add a couple reactions about X receiving an award. It is also bad form to create a section in an article that "can't" be expanded beyond two sentences. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per long standing precedent, it is not a requirement to add "reactions" to someone having been awarded a prize, and it would actually degrade the quality of the article in most cases. Per long standing precedent, the update of the article is not only sufficient, but more than sufficient. Nobel Prize winners are posted with one-sentence updates and no reactions. Bjerrebæk (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Numerous awards have failed to be posted specifically because insufficient updates. Since you feel adding information about the award will "degrade the quality of the article" I will simply oppose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Update seems sufficient to me, nice to put something that isn't elections-sports-disasters up once in a while. -- Jayron  32  16:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Update has insufficient information about the award itself and nominator opposes adding more information. Additionally, I am seeing very little international coverage of the award (not on BBC or NYT for example) raising serious doubt about the importance of the prize.--ThaddeusB (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case we need to reduce the number of science/mathematics prizes posted too drastically, and very few Nobel Prizes will end up getting posted. Neither of the ones posted last year will qualify because they didn't have bloated and WP:UNDUE sections on their prizes, but just the fact and maybe a one-sentence citation. Your comment is surely not based on policy (as the actual update requirement is more than, three times, fulfilled), but appears to be just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bjerrebæk (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken about what update means... Even leaving that aside, the prize seems to attract very little media attention. The only evidence offered of its importance is that you say it is important and being an important prize certainly is part of the ITN criteria.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Awards in humanities tend to be "under advertised", so I'm not surprised by lack of coverage around the world. One thing I want to throw out to the audience here: It is true, as nominator has pointed out, that this prize is also regarded in the humanities and social sciences circles as "Nobel for humanities and social sciences". While I understand that such comparisons are by no means an authoritative standard by which to include any award in ITN, having seen the list of awards for which automatic inclusion in ITN is warranted, it would be wonderful to include an award of some prominence in the field of humanities and social sciences in ITN for once. --Jun.rhee (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's been established that international coverage is important. This award is only 10 years old, and as far as I can see has been covered mainly in France and Norway. Also I would need to see international coverage demonstrating the importance of the award, not just snippets of news copy in foreign press mentioning the winner. --IP98 (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Armenian presidential election official runner-up on hunger strike

 * Support As the nominator. These protests don't seem to be anywhere near end. Hovannisian announced that he will continue the hunger strike until April 9, the inauguration date of the elected president Sargsyan. That might actually hurt his health. There are already calls for a "Millions protest" on April 8 which can possibly deepen the crisis in Armenia. Up to this date, everything was relatively calm as both remember that in 2008 protest ten people were killed for no apparent reason. -- Ե րևանցի talk  01:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support from what I can tell the protests remain substantial, and this looks like a good way to post a blurb on the subject. --IP98 (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I didn't see any comment from international observers that this was rigged. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See here. And why do you think the international observers should record the electoral violations? I'm not the one who should reveal that great powers have their own policy called realpolitik. You perhaps know about this, don't you? The United States had been supporting Egypt and Latin American tyrannies for decades and I don't think anyone can argue that. Saudi Arabia is another great example.
 * However, that's not the point. The candidate who even officially won 37% of the total vote in Armenia and the overwhelming majority in most cities is now on hunger strike. Can you please remind me the last time this happened in any country? -- Ե րևանցի talk  22:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your conspiracy theorizing speaks for itself and volumes for this nomination. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can label me a "conspiracy theorist" or whatever you'd like to, if that makes you happy. But your groundless accusations are not necessary here. If you have a solid reason why you oppose this nomination I would like to hear that.
 * My last question remained unanswered. What does the hunger strike of a presidential election official runner-up has to do with comment from international observers? Would you like to address that instead? When was the last time a presidential candidate went on hunger strike? -- Ե րևանցի  talk  19:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm with Yerevanci (obviously). Medeis, the news is the protests which have been going on for a month. --IP98 (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. per IP98.  Whether outside observers determined the election to be rigged or not is irrelevant; that's not what's notable here. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready? good update, !votes favor posting. --IP98 (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: I tweaked the wording of the blurb a bit, but I'm still not quite satisfied- are there any comments/suggestions/possible tweaks that anyone else can suggest? Also, is the correct terminology "goes on hunger strike" or "goes on a hunger strike"?  Spencer T♦ C 04:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Google search gives us more than 4 mllion results of "goes on hunger strike" and only 257,000 of "goes on a hunger strike"-- Ե րևանցի talk  04:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not Ready--we have two supports unless Spencer is declaring himself a third. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready again. Will let an admin decide if it moves to [Posted] or [Closed]. --IP98 (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting. Consensus is to post; the oppose was about whether or not the elections were actually rigged, which isn't quite relevant because the protests against the results of the election are what is notable. This is being posted under March 10, the day the hunger strikes started.  Spencer T♦ C 22:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] First gas extraction from offshore methane hydrate

 * Support The consequences are huge if this works out, so the idea itself is very notable. The idea of extracting methane hydrate itself has been around for a long time. My only worry about supporting this is that this half-way step is just a small incremental advance being blown out of proportion. Thue (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like the phrase "first time in the world" – how about "first time ever"? -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposed The wording would be something like "demonstrates the first successful extraction" but this is a press release by a company looking for capital to begin actually successful (i.e., commercial) extraction around 2020. Frankly, I can imagine the Doctor Who episode starring Jon Pertwee, and it doesn't end well. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Power generation from methane hydrate will be essential to maintain the modern lifestyle as conventional carbon deposits run low in the next 20 years. IMO, it is most probable stop-gap between oil/coal and fusion power and thus crucial to humanities future.  This announcement is a small, but important, step towards commercial production. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I need to see an updated article to support. --IP98 (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Story with global implications, that I notice widely in various news outlets. Highly ITN-worthy, in my view. Agree that "first time ever" is better wording for a blurb. Also agree that the methane article's update of one sentence is insufficient.  Jus  da  fax   01:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This is a significant step to commercial extraction of methane hydrates, and should be noted. --Jun.rhee (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Article has been updated and is ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You have been warned! μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Item posted by User:Stephen.  Spencer T♦ C 04:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Falkland Islands referendum

 * More update needed - I was going to oppose this as being of no real significance in the status, but having looked about it does look like it is getting coverage in rather more places than I would have expected (US, Germany, Australia China, New Zealand). Needs more of an update on the results, if prose is added to the results section with some sourced reactions will come back and support.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   07:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The results section has now been updated. Philip Stevens (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support upon update. Widely covered; notable issue.  Needs update as mentioned above. I have read there were only three no votes. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Suipport on update 99.8% in favour makes this a very significant result. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose no change in status. Not even to become a county in it's own right. A referendum to do nothing at all passed. Come on. Not news. --IP98 (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And a group of UK subjects voted to not become Argentine citizens. Not exactly a shocker there either. --IP98 (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree with IP98.  This is a referendum which changes nothing, and certainly won't change the Argentinian (or British) stance on the islands.  Outside the UK there has been coverage of this but it seems to be 'below the fold' in most places.  The New York City drinks ban is also widely covered.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I agree that this doesn't actually change anything, but a) it's receiving widespread coverage and reaction, and b) our articles on the islands, war and sovereignty dispute are pretty good and worth featuring on the Main Page. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The Falklands War is still not that far back, so result is interesting. Thue (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral (leaning to Oppose) First neutral vote. To an extent this is part of a propaganda war. The result was known before hand and has no meaningful effect. I think we should be cautious about not getting involved in that propaganda war. -- RA (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not Do not add simple "support" or "oppose" votes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached. --IP98 (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Voting to maintain the status quo is not news that has international impact. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Foregone conclusion, not news. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Referendum was only held as a gesture in certain knowledge of outcome. Kevin McE (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Black smoke from the chimney... eh, wait... – H T  D  19:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Just realized ITN used to post elections that are "foregone conclusions" such as North Korea's and Singapore's, so this is not different, as long as we're into "foregone conclusions". The crappiest pollster would've predicted this with a sample of 10 people. – H T  D  16:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that in those cases it's still a national election. This is a subnational entity. Similar to the Greenland election above. --IP98 (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to point out that unlike the mentioned Greenland election, this has been covered well in the news prior to the referendum along with political tension that underlies what makes this referendum noteworthy. --Jun.rhee (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to support the North Korea political rhetoric below, which was well covered in the news, has nuclear arms attached, but was rejected on the grounds that "nothing changed". --IP98 (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)--IP98 (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * North Korea is a different ball of wax; they have made those pronouncements many times in the past, were known to have the bomb already, and have also made other threatening statements. When they back their words up with action (the ROKS Cheonan sinking) they get a mention.The Falklands, whose views on the subject were known already, had never held an official vote on the subject of sovereignty before AFAIK.  If they held these votes all the time, then yeah, it would be a regular occurrence that isn't notable. They don't do it every day, however. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See Falkland Islands status referendum, 1986. --IP98 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything else I need to support in order for me to comment freely here? --Jun.rhee (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're free to comment wherever you like. There are no ITN police. I was simply pointing out another instance where well covered rhetoric changed nothing and wasn't posted. --IP98 (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Point taken, although 27 years ago isn't all the time. :) 331dot (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think if the Falklands were threatening Argentina with atomic sheep, this would be easier for me to support :). Cheers. --IP98 (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's simplistic to say that it was a "foregone conclusion" or that it "is not news that has international impact".  It nevertheless is still a notable development regardless of the outcome(they don't hold these votes all the time), is widely covered across the world, and has international impact as it will probably worsen relations between Argentina and the UK.  Also, as was pointed out above, this is a good chance to direct readers to some good articles on the subject, which is part of the goal of this page as I understand it. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting topic getting decent news coverage with a good article to point to. Jus  da  fax   21:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support now the article has been updated.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Events and rhetoric leading to the referendum is significant and deserve coverage, regardless of whether or not results of referendum seemed predetermined. --Jun.rhee (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Extremely symbolic move by the British. -- Ե րևանցի talk  01:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't by the "British"(i.e. someone from the UK proper telling them to do it), it was by the residents of the Falklands. They concede the purpose of the vote was to make their views known to the world, but it wasn't just an advisory referendum. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Very widely covered, and of interest outside of the Falklands. Article is in good shape and well referenced. Just because of the vote is for the status quo doesn't mean it is not noteworthy. First referendum on the issue since an unofficial one in 1986 — so not something that happens frequently. - <font color="Blue">Shudde <font color="Blue">talk 10:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Papal conclave, 2013

 * Oppose until they make a pick It is not a separate news story that they're convening; we've known they were about to convene for a little while now. The news will be when the elect a new pope. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose It was very clear in response to the proposal of posting the resignation becoming effective that there was no consensus for other steps along this road until the new pope is elected. Kevin McE (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pile-on oppose. Alas, I agree with the others.  We will of course post when they select a Pope, but intermediate steps do not require an update. Resolute 00:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose; only the selection should be posted. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the blurb, but how about a sticky for the duration of the conclave? — Kpalion(talk) 00:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A sticky might have made sense, but what would you call it? It should have been stickified a while back--but it wasn't. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sticky would presumably be called "Papal conclave" and for the record I support a sticky. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the nomination of creating a sticky needs a separate entry. On my part, I oppose it since there's so much else going on in the world that would deserve a sticky even more. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for sticky, too. --bender235 (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's really no point in a sticky now, habebimus papam soon enough. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, oppose sticky The US presidential election generates almost as much hype in the weeks leading up to the election. We don't sticky that, we won't sticky this. We posted the resignation of the last pope, we'll post white smoke, nothing else. --IP98 (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose, this article should be posted soon, because the vote by the Cardinal Electors on “Papal Conclave 2013” will start soon.  So please make this case get the attention! 
 * Because at this time the eyes of all people around the world are focused on the sacred ritual of the “Papal Conclave 2013”. This is a rare event which is now drawing attention of many people around the world and has become a major topic of the center of world attention. This issue has also become a hot and lively discussion today.
 * Thank-you very much for your understanding. Erwin Mulialim(talk)  14:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC).


 * Oppose the nomination per snowball and the sticky as well. Wikipedia is not a papal tabloid to document every successive event that happens in the Holy See. The important news will be the announcement of the new Pope and that's all. There is simply no need to insert a sticky for something that will see its outcome in a week at most.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] WISE 1049-5319

 * Oppose unless there is more widespread coverage in other media outlets. Third-closest might be a good DYK item but I'm not sure it's a news item. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Provisional support, but the article will need a lot of work, and the blurb should be rephrased to make it actually sound interesting. Spotting something this close to the Sun that was previously unnoticed is a major surprise. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 00:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Update? Strong support assuming we can get three prose paragraphs. It is nominators who should put this work in as soon as they have nominated the article, not wait for others to haul their coal. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is far from required. Remember, this is a volunteer site. Better that they nominate and not update than not nominate. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, as a side comment not necessarily applicable here (one hopes), I think giving nomination credit to someone who then abandons a nomination--which happens about half the time--is far from productive. In fact it probably lessens the number of successful nominations.  Why should an updater do someone else's work without central credit?  You'll notice I have shepherded through a lot of nominations.  It's nice when the person who's happy to give himself primary credit as nominator in the template also does the actual work to make sure his nomination is posted.  Maybe we should add something along the lines of "don't name yourself as nominator unless you have also updated the article" or, maybe better, give a barnstar or at least better recognition to the updaters who do the work rather than the credit grabbers.  (This is certainly not to imply The current nominator belongs in this category.)  But as of this edit the nominator had nothing to do with the article at all. Show me the money. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, this is a volunteer site. Unless it is disruptive, I consider drive-by nominations as ok. If the news is really big, somebody visiting this page sees a neat update proposed by a drive-by nom, then the article hits the mainpage and gets even more edits. It works like a democracy as long as there isn't anarchy - which it is not IMO. Nergaal (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have often found subjects I want to work on after they were nominated. For example, I likely would have never written 2012 Afghanistan avalanches had someone else not nominated it first. Just because someone realizes a news story might be worthy of posting doesn't necessarily mean they are interested in it. Conversely, just because someone is interested in a subject does not necessarily mean they have seen the news about it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support pending update this is the closest star discovered in almost 100 years. Nergaal (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Firstly these are brown dwarves which are categorized as substellar objects, not stars, since they are unable to fuse hydrogen. Secondly the "third closest" designation is problematic since it depends on Proxima Centauri being considered part of the Alpha Centauri system.  That is still the subject of speculation and there is no scientific consensus as to whether that is actually the case or not.  Suitably clarifying these points makes for an unwieldy blurb that does not grab the attention. 3142 (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Deuterium is not hydrogen? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not in that context, it has to be ¹H to count according to definition. 3142 (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC).
 * You are correct about the star definition. Blurb fixed. About Proxima Centauri being part of Alpha Centauri, the article says "Modern estimates, taking into account the small separation between and relative velocity of the stars, suggest that the chance of the observed alignment being a coincidence is roughly one in a million.", so considering them one system should be acceptable. At least for an ITN blurb. Thue (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter too much if it a star or not. It is one of the closest neighbors of our Solar System which makes it intrinsically notable. Nergaal (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. --bender235 (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In_the_news/Candidates first entry. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The one in a million point doesn't make the point Thue thinks it does. That simply asserts that they (probably) didn't form in isolation - it doesn't assert that they are part of the same system.  They could have formed as part of the same cluster and remained together without forming a system, for example.  Put another way, the articles on those stars are long standing and have had many expert eyeballs on them.  They avoid making the claim being made here in a one-line blurb for the expediency of getting it up on the front page.  What do you know that those experts do not?
 * As for its significance of the difference that is not for you or anyone else to judge in the minds of others. The blurb was "third closest star system".  It isn't a star.  Who knows what significance people attach to that unless they say so for themselves? 3142 (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - The article needs expanding, but is just enough for posting. I like knowing about discoveries such as this one, and suspect I am not alone. Very close to us in our galactic neighborhood. Jus  da  fax   21:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Needs Update. The article does not meet the three-paragraph minimum requirement and should not have been marked as updated. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already have Uranus on the front page as TFP. The last thing we would want to see would be a brown dwarf next to Uranus. --  Anc516  (Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 03:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support (as highly notable, "This is the closest new star system discovered since 1916", in case that wasn't obvious.) μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready the article is updated and there doesn't seem to be much serious opposition that hasn't been addressed. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite ready - the length was only achieved by adding several unreferenced paragraphs, the longest of which has little or nothing to do with this star. As far as I can see it's all correct, but needs references before this can go on the Main Page. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The longest of which was added by me after this was marked ready--it seemed more helpful than just adding a see also section. Those claims are all well referenced in their main articles.  I hope you are tagging the claims you want referenced? μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. Nergaal (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nestrs has done some good work while I was watching our new Pope. μηδείς (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hardly ready. There is clearly appetite to post this but there is is a legitimate concern about factual accuracy. See my previous comments above. "Neighbour" is in many ways worse than the original incarnation since it is more ambiguous and arguably definitively incorrect. 3142 (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your complaint, 3142, is eminently unclear. Can you be specific?  In the meantime, Nestrs below is very correct and this is overready for posting. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb and article both now modified to reflect fact that it is not known for certain if Proxima Centauri is gravitationally attached to Alpha Centauri and therefore not certain whether WISE is the third or fourth nearest system. Also note that Proxima was discovered in 1915 but its distance wasn't published until 1917.Nestrs (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Making Barnard's star in 1916 the last time an close object was discovered. Nestrs (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thankyou 3142 for pointing out the issue about Proxima Centauri. Nestrs (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  06:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Hungary constitution changes

 * Oppose this seems to be a minor development in an ongoing rift between the ruling and opposition parties in Hungary. I don't know if this is the watershed moment or not, or if it will merely continue the back and forth.  I'm willing to be wrong, but I'll oppose until it's obvious that the situation has changed dramatically.80.220.123.162 (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The ban on state media campaign advertising immediately before an election would seem to hurt the incumbent party. Requiring a pledge of community service to pay for education grants is hardly an Orwellian policy.  And whatever one's opinion of jailing bums who sleep on the street (presumably they are offered shelters?) this is at the level of municipal law, and certainly not a reason for the hysterical reaction by the opposition. μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

[Pulled] Crufts 2013

 * Support alt blurb The article doesn't quite meet the minimum. Crufts seems to be a big deal. Apparently ITN/R is meaningless now. I say go for it. --IP98 (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. --IP98 (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Great, I see an article has been created for the winner, and think that is a better target as IP98 says. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Soletrader Peek A Boo article is sufficiently updated. This is also a new article, so if consensus here is not to post, then this is also potentially eligible for DYK.  Spencer T♦ C 01:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready? There are only three votes plus the nom, but given Spencer's chosen to mark this updated again, I think we can say there's consensus unless we get some opposes. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sure other news sources are out there, but as a matter of principle we should not post something when the only news source is the primary source of the organisers. Kevin McE (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose until international importance is demonstrated. Crufts is certainly presented as the most important dog show in UK media (no other reaches beyond local papers and specialised press) and in the broadcasts from the show, but I would like some international perspective on this.  It is only in recent years, since the introduction of the pet passport, that the competition has been in any meaningful way international: elsewhere, important international competition may be much better established.  I've left a note at WP:Dogs, but what mention is this getting in other countries' media, if any? Perhaps the discussion there (if any ensues) should be monitored as part of the importance decision before posting. Kevin McE (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Kevin McE. The only source currently establishing international importance goes to what appears to be the organization arranging the event. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Not ready, update to bold article not up to standard. Does not appear to be making the news internationally.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   07:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated It was decided to go with the altblurb, whose target article is indeed updated. μηδείς (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "It was decided..."? Where, when and by whom? This is the place where consensus is reached on ITN proposals. Kevin McE (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

See also El Mundo, Los Andes μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * International This story is being covered by the Washington Post, the Daily Mail, the Mirror, The Toronto Sun, France 24, ABC News (America), The Guardian, BBC News--all from a glance at google news. Opposes because the nominator gave the host's website show a lack of curiosity.  μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither of these refer to the winner at all: a brief paragraph in each case, and by no means testament to internationally recognised importance. Kevin McE (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * More like a lack of responsibility on the nominator's part, as these sources of international coverage that you claim were not included in the template - and I searched for them too, on BBC and CNN. --WaltCip (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please. The guidelines above specifically say that importance outside a specific nation is not required and that demanding it is unhelpful.  Nevertheless the games are being covered from France to Argentina.  The fact that not ever source is of equal quality or relevance is absolutely irrelevant so long as we do have adequate sources for the claims being made--there's hugely detailed coverage in English language press.So you've got your notable foreign sources mentioning the show, you've got plenty of sources for the target article.  Expanding the show article itself is trivially easy given the quality of the article on the winner--if that's what you want.  Is that what you want?  Or will some other objection arise?  If so, I'll expand the show article after dinner if someone hasn't already. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. --IP98 (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Only relating to one country is one thing: being of no significance in any other country, gaining no media coverage, and simply being the top national event in a field in which dozens of other countries have their own top level event is another. No-one has said anything about "relating" to only one country (they would be wrong to, the runner up was Italian), they have questioned international importance compared to other dog shows (which also draw multinational fields).  If the Tour de France were simply one more national bike tour, like the Tours of Turkey, Bolivia or Hungary, it would not be worth mentioning at ITN: it needs to be established that it has more significance than simply being UK's biggest dog show, otherwise we would need to justify not including Spain or Sweden's biggest dog shows as well.  Kevin McE (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can show that Spain and Sweden's top dog shows get the same coverage, then bring that up at talk, and we can address what to do. But I don't remember anyone arguing against posting the Irish Rugby finals because then we might have to post the Tongan and the Thai Rugby finals.  Dog shows are pretty much an anglosphere phenomenon--and personally they are not my cup of tea.  But this was a good nomination well supported. μηδείς (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolute nonsense. The burden is on those who wish something to be featured to demonstrate that these are worthwhile, important events. You have supplied two links to very short items that do not even mention the winner. Kevin McE (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted - In light of the supplied evidence of international coverage, the support side has consensus via a stronger argument. Update is strong, so blurb passes on both regards.  Additionally, the newest story on ITN was 5 days old so I am willing to post under a slightly lower standard of consensus than I might otherwise post under. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So now "nice", "light hearted" and "seems to be a big deal" (but no evidence put forward) is a strong argument???? And the need to demonstrate widespread coverage is not????  Laughable call.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment there is a free image if we want to replace Chavez. --IP98 (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pull. ITN includes "articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest". Coverage in multiple sources is not a reflection of increased importance, rather a consequence of a globalised media. The show was not regarded as "major" (i.e. front-page of a website) news on any of the sources listed above. A dog show, even the most prestigious in the world, is not of wide enough interest to justify posting. 124.148.242.174 (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your interest in Wikipedia is greatly encouraged, and your two edits (i.e., one single edit before this one) are greatly appreciated. Please see WP:ACCOUNT. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Impugning, even implicitly, a vote because of editor inexperience is invalid. Very poor form.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ITN has quite literally gone to the dogs now! That said, I will not contest this posting.--WaltCip (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alas, but I think at least it should take a while before we post animal shows (and vegetable shows and beauty pageants too for that matter) again. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I will: response on WT:MP and WT:ITN shows that there is dissatisfaction in the community over this decision. Kevin McE (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose pull
 * Pull International importance not demonstrated. Kevin McE (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pull - Sticks out like a sore thumb. Thought it was April Fools come early at first. I mean... really? Jus  da  fax   07:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I must say I was surprised at first too, but it is in fact amusing and lighthearted story. No need to be so bloody serious all the time. And yeah, before someone complains I don't really edit ever, but wanted to tell my feelings about this. 84.248.153.18 (talk) 07:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pull, is not the most prestigious dog show in the world. Nobody is following this with baited breath. Look at the pitiful page views; 540 on the day of (after?) winning. I understand User:ThaddeusB's reasoning in posting due to lack of other updates, but one method that I propose admins consider posting these tricky candidates is to imagine, "Could they make a movie out of this?" Not a 30 minute TV show, but a feature length movie. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pull - Very limited news coverage, certainly not nearly enough for normal ITN standards. --GoldenMew (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pulled - The community's wishes seem pretty clear. If it hadn't been such a slow news cycle lately, this probably wouldn't have come close to being posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Repost Page views is irrelevant. Update is adequate. No less significant globally than a Chinese car accident or an African bus crash. Multi-national competition. Shows systemic bias when a human can kick a ball into a net you throw your hands up and exclaim "OMG news", but when a dog fetches a ball, it's "come on is this a joke". Sad. --IP98 (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Posting this would be a potential embarrassment for ITN.  I see no evidence that this dog show is viewed as significant news.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - consensus was clearly to pull, and I am fine with that. I would like to point out that ITN would benefit from more participants and encourage those angered by this posting to express their opinions about stories on a more regular basis. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I really doubt you can call a consensus based on four people, at least you shouldn't. I doubt anyone is really angered about this either but it is highly annoying. Wikipedia isn't some newspaper that have to stick to some rigid editorial line. But it is in fact a community project. 84.248.153.18 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's kind of my point - many items only receive 3 or 4 comments so it is difficult to assess consensus. More participation here would be helpful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think it would be more helpful to see more participation, then you should wait until the people come here to comment on it and not posting only because 3 or 4 people demonstrated their point.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If we required more than 3-4 supports, we would never post half the stories we do. Participation on most items is simply not very high. If people do not like the decisions made at ITN they should start participating in the discussions instead of complaining after the fact. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you posted an item receiving barely a consensus towards posting at the time (with 4 supports against 3 opposes). We usually post items with low number of supports only if there are no opposes at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not determined by vote counting... I can't believe I am catching flack for encouraging people to participate in ITN. Geez. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed... and I'm disappointed by the lack of understanding with regards to how consensus is actually assessed: strength of arguments and a sense of how they impact the general opinion, not a mere head count. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  18:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Since Soletrader Peek A Boo is a new article, this is probably eligible for DYK assuming it meets the update requirements.  Spencer T♦ C 04:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was posted in ITN (no matter how short). Automatically forfeits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I indeed stand corrected.  Spencer T♦ C 07:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Stupid rule, if you ask me... it was pulled, so how is that considered a feature? <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  18:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Maltese general election
– HonorTheKing (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Yes it's an election in a country, but 300k voted out of ~450k, which let face it, its realy little.
 * Support per ITN/R. Looks good. --IP98 (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Marking ready per ITN/R notability is already checked. Update is there. Size of the country is staggeringly irrelevant. --IP98 (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not ready - the results section consists of only 3 sentences. Given that posting of minor elections is controversial to begin with (ITN/R notwithstanding), we really should have a high quality update before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We always have that, sometimes even less (sports articles without any prose). Three is abt minimum. Also as said all the time the size of the cuntry is irrelevantLihaas (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not true. We certainly do not post "sports articles without any prose" and almost never post an update as little as three sentences.  Just b/c sometimes is on ITN/R does not mean the update quality doesn't matter. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted. I added more to the "Results"; the rest of the article is in good shape.  Spencer T♦ C 22:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Bernard Hopkins

 * Oppose Hopkins already was the oldest boxer to hold a world title: more evidence of inability of the sport to effectively identify a true champion than any genuine status held by Hopkins. Not featuring as a major world sports story.  Kevin McE (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Kevin McE.  This is a bit of odd trivia.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kevin. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Kenyan general election, 2013
Moved from March 4 and updated the blurb now the results have been announced. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this a general election in a presidential system, where the president and members of the bicameral legislature elected in separate ballots, so it's the blurb is quite inappropriate. Why not
 * "In Kenya, X of the Y party wins the presidential election, with the Z party winning elections to the Senate, and the A party winning in the National Assembly."

The blurb can be shortened if a party wins all three... uh, ballots, or we can just highlight the presidential elections and instead have "X wins the 2013 Kenyan presidential election." There's a chance of a presidential 2nd round, so we can also highlight the legislative elections now since it appears they're in the FPTP system. – H T  D  16:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment, blurb should have something like, "...marred by violence..." Abductive  (reasoning) 16:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, would be standard to list a national election result, even if not historic like this one. - Nbpolitico (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Results have now been announced, so I've moved this to the relevant day and updated the blurb. I only mentioned the presidential part, not sure if we should mention the other elections held at the same time. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * very weak oppose Odinga is challenging it to the SC. Could have somethng like last election if its not sorted. We should, in these circumstances, wait till a swearing in.Lihaas (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is Kenyatta is sure to be sworn in despite the case? If yes, why wait? – H T  D  17:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, it's a national election and important for the nation in question. I'd suggest changing the blurb to "is declared the winner of the 2013 Kenyan election", since that will obviate any challenges on the grounds of NPOV; even his opponents agree that he's been declared the winner.  Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ewald-Heinrich von Kleist-Schmenzin RD

 * Oppose Barely a mention of him at 20 July plot, no mention of him at all at Operation Valkyrie, pretty far down the cast list at Stauffenberg (film) and not in the cast list at Valkyrie (film). Simply being the last surviving member isn't enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

North Korea ends Armistice Agreement

 * At this point, the only thing that will be newsworthy from North Korea is a militarized attack on another country in some form.--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment didn't they already end the ceasefire in 2009? Thue (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wrote an update at Korean_Armistice_Agreement. Thue (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I do think it is most likely just retorics, but I think the sum and power of the retorics this time, along with closing the border and the hotline, is unprecedented and powerful enough to merit an ITN item. See, having nuclear weapons does have a use for North Korea - their threads get to be mentioned in ITN! Thue (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. This is a result of the nuclear test which we already posted. Closing the border is significant, but the rest of this is just rhetoric. So long as there is no actual fighting, the existence or otherwise of a non-aggression pact is pretty much moot. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we also include the latest Security Council Resolution in the blurb? LukeSurlt c 15:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that resolution itself might be ITN-worthy. But I am not sure if North Korea unilaterally declaring the armistice void is that notable, given their standard of empty aggressive rhetoric in diplomatics, as long as there is no actual military action at least. --hydrox (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support - A very large and historical occurance with possibly widespread and economic results. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I had actually intended to oppose, but Thue swayed me. The "withdraw" section should get a full five sentence update for this latest occurrence before going up. --IP98 (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support even if it is sabre-rattling rhetoric, it's in the news for sure, and assuming a decent update, let's post it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is rhetoric. They have violated it in the past without formal announcement and there's no reason to believe they seriously mean to violate its spirit it now. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree about the rhetoric, but I also think that nuclear weapons tests in the North followed by the South saying any such attack on them would result in North Korea becoming "extinct from the Earth by the will of mankind", this has escalated to a point which we haven't seen for quite some time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - This will provoke action whether anyone believes North Korea or not. Suggest blurb: North Korea announces it is revoking non-aggression pacts with South Korea. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Looking into this, it appears to be a fairly serious problem, according to CNN and other news sources. I would consider the pending UN sanctions, supported by China and the US as shown in the link, as part of the blurb, as well as the nuclear war threats. If this isn't ITN-worthy, I don't know what is. Jus  da  fax   18:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: Have they revoked it or just announced that they are going to revoke it? Also, the blurb is grammatically incorrect. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. They've said that before; only if there is an actual military action should this be posted. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Week Oppose Firstly where is the major update to the article reflecting this recent announcement all that there is two lines, and this appears to be a routine part of North Korean foreign policy it having been also announced in 1994, 1996, 2003, 2006 and 2009. Would reconsider if a larger update is made, outlining why this time it is either more significant or more important.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   22:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support iff The pact is actually revoked. Hostilities are not necessary, an actual revocation is.  Revoking a non-agression pact is a far cry from the minor saber rattling they did in the past.   Ryan Vesey 23:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bee Ess These regular announcements by NK that it will no longer be bound by the 1950's armistice are a regular occurrence over the last 20 years, as LGA alludes to above. For example:"'May 23, 1994 -- North Korea's Foreign Ministry says the country will no longer be bound by the armistice agreement should the United States go ahead with a multinational naval exercise called the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) drill, which South Korea ultimately participated in. The drill was held from late May to mid-July.'"Please read this source, from the armistice article, before you vote support on this posting. 02:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose- The KCNA website has said something along the lines of "we will not follow the armistice agreement" or "x action by US/SK ends the armistice agreement" far more times than the instances in the above link. I don't have time to gather links, but I'm sure any other reader of the KCNA will attest to that as well. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 00:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: More sabre-rattling. I'll support posting of an action with more important impacts, such as the nuclear test that they did a little bit ago, or notable rocket launches.  Spencer T♦ C 01:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Even if it is just another round of North Korean sabre-rattling, the end of the armistice is a very significant development. Kurtis (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not entirely clear that's what this is, as they have made similar statements before. 331dot (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support because I'm not sure why this hasn't been posted yet. &mdash; <span style="color:#666 !important;">TORTOISE  WRATH  23:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not really a convincing reason to support this. 331dot (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I wasn't going to vote here, seeing how I live in Seoul and have a fairly strong opinion about North Korea, but apparently, in order for me to comment freely here at any one topic, I need to. --Jun.rhee (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

New lifeform in Lake Vostok
This is a really big deal, the only problem is that I am not sure it has been published in a journal. Nergaal (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose (and please use the template). As you say, no peer reviewed analyses of this has been published, so we have no idea what it is. Bad researchers, no point in putting out a press statement without the published research to back it up Fgf10 (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, even with journal publication, unless there is some additional extraordinary circumstance. In the extremophile article it says "New sub-types of -philes are identified frequently and the sub-category list for extremophiles is always growing", so it doesn't seem to be a very rare event. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, for all we know it could use silicon based RNA and signal in morse code using bio-luminescence. Surely that would be ITN worthy....? I jest, but we have no idea what's going on until some data comes out. But yes, it would have to be pretty spectacularly different for it to actually be news. Probably this is just another case where the international media are hoodwinked by a savvy PR department. 131.251.133.27 (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if it turns out to signal in morse code I'm prepared to change my mind but I'm suspecting it won't get much better now. What I would like to see to support this nomination is, for example, a change in current models of evolutionary development. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now due to lack of a) a peer-reviewed article and b) any real information. In what way is this bacteria different? If it's just a new genus, I'm sorry but that's not significant. If it has an entirely different form of respiration, then this would be notable. At present there's no real explanation. I also find the quote on Mars to be laughable - I could pick up a pot plant, and say 'if we found this on Mars everyone would agree there was life on Mars'. But it's still just a pot plant from my office. Finding life on Earth is not remarkable. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry but today's news says they were looking at contaminants and that they didn't find anything new. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Opppose I was just about to post the same link saying this claim was withdrawn. μηδείς (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Berlusconi convicted

 * Support if we have an article update. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment He was convicted on other charges in October, so that mediates some of the appeal to posting this in my eyes. I do see that the October 2012 conviction was posted, though. Also, he's likely to appeal this. How have we handled similar cases with multiple convictions for different charges, which are being appealed? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not the first time he is sentenced in prison and it doesn't mean he will be jailed for sure. I'd say that the only way this could bear some importance is if he ends in jail; otherwise, it's the same story with the same conclusion again.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose meaningless sentence given the amount of appeals available in the Italian courts. He's been convicted so many times for so many things, everybody's lost track of it. A final sentence, sure that's very notable, but this is not one.  Snowolf How can I help? 18:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support A former Prime Minister being convicted of a crime is never trivial, even if there are still appeals. Thue (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at how our main newspaper is playing it: http://www.corriere.it/ Even radioactive wild boars are higher on the list xD  Snowolf How can I help? 19:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Does Berlusconi own that paper by any chance? --LukeSurlt c 21:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He does not (technically it's his brother that owns his papers anyway). The RCS Mediagroup which is the parent company of the Corriere della Sera is owned by a consortium of companies in the banking, insurance, construction sectors plus FIAT and has been critical of Berlusconi in the past. It is also the main competitor of Berlusconi's publishing group Arnoldo Mondadori Editore.  Snowolf How can I help? 10:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Radioactive wild boar? Now that deserves an ITN! -- RA (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per snowolf. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral I would support even pending appeals if it was for the sex with little girls, but I think in this case maybe it's better to wait until he's actually sent to jail. --IP98 (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sex with little girls? She was 17 for crying out loud..... Sleazy? Yes. Paedophilia? No.131.251.133.26 (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - per Thue. This is a very big deal; a prominent PM is convicted of a crime. Highly ITN-worthy, in my view. Jus  da  fax   05:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Former PM. Big difference. He's been convicted before, and there are plenty of appeals left. Barely news any more in his case. Fgf10 (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - fake "justice" he will not serve a day in prison anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. While the conviction of a former PM of activities is normally notable, reading his article I can see this isn't all that unusual for this man. In this case it may be better to wait until he actually enters prison, which may or may not happen- though I do think in general it would be OK to post now instead of waiting until appeals are exhausted. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Snowolf. Not a final sentence. --hydrox (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

[Updated] 2013 Lahad Datu standoff
Indeed, blurb updates often are handled at that page. Blurb updates pertaining to separate incidents not clearly described in the article aren't. —David Levy 05:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC) I'm further confused by your above statement that I "said any change to the blurb would have to have consensus at ITN/C". Not only does this directly contradict your aforementioned claim, but it simply isn't accurate. (I only stated that I wasn't comfortable making the particular change requested.) —David Levy 06:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC) I said that it would be helpful to initiate an ITN/C discussion (as you separately acknowledged above). I'm baffled as to what you "didn't understand".
 * Comment I think WP:Main Page/Errors is the best place for this, but an admin here might take care of it. Ryan Vesey 04:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I already went there and I was somewhat cryptically told to go here instead. – H T  D  05:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How was my advice cryptic? I even explained why I didn't feel comfortable updating the item without consensus here.  —David Levy 05:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I dunno what you wanted to happen, TBH. You never explicitly stated that I should post here, and 2 days went by without any concrete suggestions from you on what to do? Blurb updates are routine in WP:ERRORS, as Ryan Vesey implied. – H T  D  05:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I never explicitly stated that you should post here? I'm gobsmacked.
 * Yeah, that's why I was unsure of where to go. Even Ryan Vesey presumed I should've went there first, which I did. I was dumbfounded when you said any change to the blurb would have to have consensus at ITN/C (a valid point), but updates were usually handled here or WP:ERRORS. I chose the latter as I thought it would've been faster. – H T  D  05:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not criticising you for raising the matter at WP:ERRORS. I just don't understand why you're claiming that I was cryptic and didn't explicitly advise you to post here.
 * Well that confirms I didn't understand whatever it is you said.
 * The reason why WP:ERRORS exists is to have speedy resolution to edit requests. That's why I resorted to pointing out that the discussion went stale (which you characterized as a "complaint"). In verbatim, I said "Is there any hope of a supposedly speedy resolution to this issue?" which just a query on when would someone act on it, as it took 14 hours already. The only consensus needed at WP:ERRORS is between you and me, and not the people here at ITN/C, as that would defeat the whole purpose of WP:ERRORS... which has been defeated anyway, as I expected at most a two-hour discussion that turned into 3 days long.
 * You could've just explicitly said I needed to go here instead, and explicitly asked for an update, instead of wasting our time. – H T  D  06:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You requested an ITN blurb update not supported by the article's prose. I've explained this repeatedly, including at WP:ERRORS.

Are you seriously suggesting that this wasn't a "complaint" about the delay? ("Supposedly speedy" isn't exactly glowing praise.) Regardless, I responded by pointing you here. You evidently misinterpreted this as an accusation that you "went to the wrong place". I clarified that an ITN/C listing was advisable because I didn't "feel comfortable performing the suggested update without consensus", as it wasn't "clear to me that the article's prose account[ed] for all of the deaths included in the figure". You responded by arguing with me (citing past instances in which ITN blurbs were updated upon request and noting that the death toll was "cited in the article", despite the fact that the prose didn't match) and asking what you should do (despite the fact that I'd pointed you to ITN/C twice). I replied with a third mention of ITN/C, and you agreed to come here. Then you claimed that I was cryptic and "never explicitly stated that [you] should post here".

I explained to you that no such agreement existed, as I didn't see an appropriate article update enabling immediate modification of the blurb. That's why I advised you to bring the matter here.

Its purpose isn't to bypass ITN's article update requirements and push through questionable changes without consensus.

You expected the blurb to be updated with claims not reflected in the article's prose. When I pointed you to a suitable forum in which to discuss (and hopefully rectify) the matter, you wasted more than 16 hours (during which you questioned my response and expressed bafflement as to why the ITN blurb wasn't simply updated with information not contained in the article's prose) before finally agreeing to come here (and then claiming that I never clearly advised you to).

Again, I'm gobsmacked. —David Levy 15:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC) "" "" ""
 * David Levy, for some reason, I do my reading on the edit page (lol) and I see this big wall of text. I'd try to respond on this, hopefully for the last time as it is not helping the growth of the encyclopedia.
 * So after four days of discussion, you've finally explicitly said it. The blurb is not found in the article. I was second guessing on what you actually wanted to say.
 * While I'd happily concede that my words weren't "glowing praise", if it sounded as a complaint to you, then I'm sorry for giving out a complaint. At least someone responded after 15 hours, and for that I give my thanks. If it weren't for my "complaint", I dunno what would have happened. Probably nothing. As for article updates, again, as what I've said before, I've only contributed lightly to the article, and the article has doubled in size after March 1. I wasn't privy to the issue that the cited death toll in the infobox isn't found elsewhere in the article. I did not know about this, and whatever is wrong with the article should've been fixed now. I stand by my earlier statement that the death toll was cited, and that there was more than sufficient expansion on the article. Whether or not it was in the prose wasn't brought up explicitly. As you've said, " It isn't clear to me that the article's prose accounts for all of the deaths included in the figure." This means anywhere from the death toll is in the article but is in a bad state (bad grammar, etc.), the death toll is incomplete in the prose, to the death poll isn't in the article at all. If you could have plainly stated that "The prose doesn't include the x death toll," we could've been saved by this misery. – H T  D  16:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

" <font color="#ff8c00">Can someone come up with a death toll and put it on the prose? " And how are you counting "three days"? You initiated the request on 5 March at 14:32 and posted the last message on 7 March at 4:36. That's just over a a day and a half. —David Levy 05:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC) By that logic, the span from 23:59 on Monday to 00:00 on Wednesday equals "three days".
 * This occurred after three days of discussion at WP:ERRORS me second guessing what you really wanted to say at ITN/C. I was asking you for three days on what's wrong. All I got was an ambiguous question. – H T  D  02:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Even after I've quoted my repeated explanations, you're still claiming that I didn't provide them.
 * Well, so three? March 5, 6 and 7? I have not claimed you did not provide them, I said you never explicitly said them. Shortly before you explicitly said them, I've read the entire article and saw what's up, and these had been remedied already. Three days of discussion at WP:ERRORS is a long time... – H T  D  05:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I just read that comment three times without managing to make sense of it.

Wow. —David Levy 06:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC) "" The expansion must cover the information summarized in the blurb. Simply increasing the article's size doesn't justify an ITN blurb containing claims not made in the article's prose. You say that you didn't realize this, but I explained it repeatedly (both at WP:ERRORS and here). —David Levy 06:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC) See above. —David Levy 18:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC) ("Can someone come up with a death toll and put it on the prose?") appears to acknowledge that the article's prose doesn't cover all 45 deaths, so why have you requested such update to the ITN blurb? —David Levy 05:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This already happened at the fourth day of discussion, after the discussion at WP:ERRORS ended. – H T  D  03:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What happened? And how are you counting "four days of discussion"?  You wrote that on 7 March at 16:57, just over two days after you initiated the request at WP:ERRORS (on 5 March at 14:32.)  —David Levy 05:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, so three? March 5, 6 and 7? – H T  D  05:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As noted above, that isn't how timekeeping works. —David Levy 06:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, and I'm sounding like you now, I didn't know the death toll was not cited in the prose. As stated elsewhere on this discussion, news sources have not put up a single news article stating the overall death toll until late last night. That's why there were then several references on the infobox's casualty section, and I presumed those same references are being used elsewhere. – H T  D  03:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the fact that you requested an ITN blurb update without bothering to check whether the article's prose contained the relevant information, I explained the discrepancy over and over (both at WP:ERRORS and here). I've linked to diffs.  —David Levy 05:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has more than ITN's recommended expansion length on the skirmishes after March 1. The article was updated and was cited. This is a fact. – H T  D  05:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article's prose accounted for a quantity of deaths significantly lower than that which you requested for inclusion in the ITN blurb (both at WP:ERRORS and here). This is a fact.
 * I'm beginning to wonder how replying on this discussion is beneficial to the betterment of any article. – H T  D  02:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to disengage at any time. —David Levy 05:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So this discussion is not really helping? – H T  D  05:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm simply responding to your inaccurate claims (including those that cast blame on me). —David Levy 06:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What relevant deaths occurred on 6 March? It appears that the most recent ones mentioned in the article occurred on 3 March.  And while the infobox's death figures total 45, I count a total of 27 at most (if we go with the higher figures where contradictions exist) mentioned in the prose.  Where are the other deaths described (and are they the ones that occurred on 6 March)?  —David Levy 05:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question. The relevant deaths occurred on March 1 (Lahad Datu), 3 (Semporna) and 5 (airstrikes). The next ITN blurb updates after this was posted was Chavez's death on March 5, and this occurred hours after the aforementioned March 5 events and the northern Mali conflict on March 4. If anyone is into bureaucratic stuff, they can move this to March 5 from March 6. As for the death toll, I had already asked for help on the article's talk page. – H  T  D  05:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Where in is a single death mentioned?
 * Apparently, there are reports on March 6 that a dozen of the sultanate people bodies were found, presumably due to the airstrike. I've searched for a concrete death toll, and the latest (dated March 5) had 31 deaths; presumably these didn't yet include those who died in the airstrike.
 * As for requests for an ITN update, of course, all pending ITN updates have to be updated at the article. There's nothing wrong on a preliminary discussion. If no one died on March 5, then we can use the March 3 update of having 30 dead, which I originally asked at WP:ERRORS on March 5. I merely followed the death toll at the infobox, which jumped from ~30 to 40+ at the span of two days of discussion at WP:ERRORS, plus a third day now. – H T  D  05:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As noted above (and previously at the errors page), I don't even see 30 deaths covered in the prose. That's one of the reasons why I declined to fulfill the request and recommended that you initiate a discussion here.  —David Levy 06:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not been a primary author of the article, but it seems the unified death toll is the one found in the infobox, the death tolls in the prose are given per skirmish. – H T  D  06:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. And they should match.  Last night (my time), the infobox's casualty figures totaled 45, while the prose's totaled 27 (at most).  —David Levy 15:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is true, and I've remedied this. – H T  D  16:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hence the wording "Last night (my time)...". —David Levy 20:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support bump. I found 14 (1 March skirmish) + 13 (Semporna attack) + 13 (Assault by Malaysian Armed Forces) = 40 dead in prose. OTOH, see source in ITN box above (already in article infobox). ... (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've amended the blurb to "more than 40" as there are reports of 30+ deaths (aside from the 40 in the infobox) today. Clearly, the blurb has to be edited to show that it has escalated into something else, rather than as an isolated gunfight. If any more deaths occur it's safe that we can slide it down, since the focus of the blurb has changed. – H T  D  13:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that my earlier count of "27" comprised the (possible) 14 from the 1 March skirmish and 13 from the 3 March Semporna attack. At that time, the "Assault by Malaysian Armed Forces and subsequent operations" section contained no mention of any deaths.  (The need for such expansion was one of the factors justifying this discussion.)  —David Levy 15:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been fixed already. – H T  D  16:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hence the wording "At the time...". In response to Tripledot's count of "40 dead in prose", I wrote the above note to explain to the discussion's readers that my earlier count of "27" occurred before a mention of 13 additional deaths was added.  —David Levy 20:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Now this is what I really don't understand. This has been fixed. So what if it's not fixed when you saw it? We're not going to revert to that version what posted, right? FWIW, the 13 deaths occurred after the discussion ended at WP:ERRORS. – H T  D  02:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I counted mentions of 27 deaths in the article's prose. Then Tripledot counted 40 (including 13 added after I checked).  The above note's purpose is to prevent confusion on the part of the discussion's readers by explaining that we aren't contradicting each other or disputing each other's findings.  —David Levy 05:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe the latest deaths were not accounted for in the previous versions. The article never had one reference for overall deaths -- as you and the other person said, they have to be added per skirmish -- until lately. – H T  D  05:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I plainly stated above that the difference lies in the "Assault by Malaysian Armed Forces..." section (which now covers 13 deaths instead of none). —David Levy 06:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: For reasons stated by others above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Update Me please. At least the info if not a bump in rank. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Current blurb says 12 deaths in one engagement. Article now says 60 died in multiple engagements. – H T  D  02:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Needs attention. There is enough support for an at least an update to the blurb, at most a bump. The death toll has been removed from the suggested blurb as it apparently changes by the day. This should be the last bump/post about this unless the conflict expands into Sarawak, Kalimantan or Tawi-Tawi. – H T  D  05:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated & bumped to March 5 spot. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Y-chromosomal Adam

 * Updated support in principle, pending the work/proof/pudding. [which has been done μηδείς (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)] μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As per Medeis, support in principle, but I thing we'd only get a sufficient update to Y-chromosomal Adam or Haplogroup A-V148 (Y-DNA) if an expert read the full article and process it for us. Is there an appropriate Wikiproject we could notify? --LukeSurlt c 08:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - the paper is actually quite nicely written and accessible, thanks to this I think I've been able to produce a reasonable update at Y-chromosomal_Adam. --LukeSurlt c 08:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * n.b. before anyone points it out, New Scientist is wrong to say that the late Albert Perry was the only member of the halpgroup (which would complicate things if he had no sons), there are a few (living) Mbo individuals as well. --LukeSurlt c 08:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support article is updated, topic is stereotypically encyclopedic, impact is large (apparently certain evidence of pre-sapiens ancestry, and thus human evolution generally) news is really cool.128.214.79.75 (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Good update, thanks Luke. Interesting. Covered in WP:RS is plenty enough for me. --IP98 (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Perfect for an encyclopedia per the IP. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This is updated and I've marked it ready. μηδείς (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I normally auto-support this kind of news for ITN, but in this case, the confidence interval is 237-581 kya. I don't understand the typical customs in the field to appreciate a value in time which has a standard deviation about 1/6 of it. To put that in perspective, it is like saying that Jesus was born in 1 BC, with a confidence interval between 1400 BC and 600 AD. Nergaal (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that that is icky, and I personally added the 95% confidence interval to the article before nominating. But it seems that that is how it is done in this field (in this paper at least). In any case, even the 237 kya lower bound is groundbreaking. Thue (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For perspective, extending your analogy would mean the prior estimate for Jesus' birth was at some point during the Second Crusade. LukeSurlt c 22:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A date for Y Adam preceding Chromosomal Eve is notable in itself. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same, actually. Logically there must be a Mitochondrial Eve somewhere of about the same age, unless early homos were asexual, which would be truly bizarre. --IP98 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? Mitochondrial Eve doesn't need to be of the same age as Y-chromosomal Adam. Thue (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thue's right, they are totally unrelated. μηδείς (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I guess I should stick to PHP. Sorry about that. --IP98 (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * On a unrelated note we need some of you to give us some ideas on this talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans. In addition to that I think my edits were the force that caused thule to nominate this so i would like a reward if at all possible. Nottruelosa (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Alvin Lee (RD)

 * Oppose - I really wouldn't consider him or his band to be very important in his/their field. Sure, they played Woodstock, but neither Lee nor his band had done much work of any significance since then. Also, the article is largely unreferenced. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose neither he nor his band is mentioned in blues rock, so they probably aren't at the top of that field.  Spencer T♦ C 00:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the reasons given. 331dot (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd love to support this nom, but I don't know what to do. --IP98 (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Gave me a chuckle. -- Jayron  32  21:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Good RD candidate. Music star of great note; my reaction was of surprise. Jus  da  fax   06:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Syrian National Coalition granted Syria's Arab League seat
I've updated the Syrian Civil War lead with the story and the Syrian National Coalition and Arab League pages as well. I'm guessing the Syrian civil war should be the main article due to it being the main event surrounding the situation. Hello32020 (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose weakly - this doesn't actually impact the outcome of the conflict. If the government is able to defeat the insurgents, this would likely roll back. --IP98 (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think this had happened informally (by dismissing Assad's regime from the League) a while ago. This is good progress, but it's not earth-shattering, and not ITN-worthy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sticky Given this and the nom below, wouldn't a Syrian Civil War sticky make sense? μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose sticky per reasons given below. Suggest a new subsection for a separate sticky nom. --IP98 (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'd support this if it was the UN, but the League is not on the same level as that. 331dot (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Syrian rebels capture its first city Battle of Ar-Raqqah

 * Support large city and provincial capital. Seems like an important milestone. Decent article to highlight, rather than the monster Syrian Civil War article. --IP98 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose looks like Syria stories are a good candidate to be a sticky. This, in itself, isn't ITN, but the various things going on in Syria right now may warrant a sticky for a bit.   The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree One of my major objections to the sticky is that it points to a massive, lumbering article that interested parties really have to sift through to find updates. I would rather have standalone articles like this one which highlight major milestones go up in blurb form. --IP98 (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I just don't see this story on the usual news sites I visit at all. So it's not "in the news" from that perspective.  Hence a sticky might help out to keep it ticking over.  As such, changed my position.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Couldn't a sticky point to a 2013 Timeline of the Syrian Civil War article, with individual items added as necessary? μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean an article like this? Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from January 2013).  Spencer T♦ C 20:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  HAHaha HAHaha  HAHaha HAHaha HAHaha   HAHaha  !!! μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify please? --LukeSurlt c 09:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article Medeis originally linked to was a redlink, and he was suggesting that it could be created. I pointed out that the article he was proposing already existed (my link).  Spencer T♦ C 15:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, by making that redirect I kind of messed up the whole point Mikael Häggström (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, for notable event and to compensate for the absence of a sticky. Mikael Häggström (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant development in the ongoing war. Jus  da  fax   06:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready article is ok. !votes favor posting. --IP98 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Hugo Chávez is dead
Lester Foster (talk &#124; talk) 22:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * support in every sense of that word. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Duhhh...Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I'll go ahead and post this one... Kaldari (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support if it is not a hoax. I think we should wait a bit for more authoritative sources. LegalEagle (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support, no need to give reason.Egeymi (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. A major and durable political "player" on the world stage. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as long as it isn't a hoax. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted it (confirmed on BBC News). Kaldari (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You were reverted; the death section needs more than just a one sentence update.  Spencer T♦ C 22:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I'll let you guys handle it then :) Kaldari (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like the "Cancer" section is sort of updated, and that would make the "Death" section unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know why we're still sitting on it at this point. What are we waiting on? Someone to write a eulogy? Kaldari (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no rush. The point of this section is to highlight good quality articles in the news. It's widely agreed that around five sentences constitute a sufficient update. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize there's no rush, but there's also not much that can be added to the article at this point. It already has extensive discussion about his illness. Are we going to wait until all the world's politicians have gotten to add their sound bite? What specific information are we waiting to get added to the article? Kaldari (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've no issue with posting now, but it was definitely not acceptable when I posted. Even now, it borders on repeating the same information in three different sentences... <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  23:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The current update is a bit lean, but I think it's acceptable. Now we just have to wait for an uninvolved admin to wander in and choose a blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support full blurb pending update --IP98 (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Cambalachero (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The only problem with the death section is edit conflicts, given everyone is so excited. Somebody's even been removing the death section.  μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think both "cancer" and "in office" are superfluous. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly support a full blurb using the second wording. -- Hazhk Talk to me 22:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Pending full update. I prefer the second blurb, did cancer kill him, did cancer treatment kill him?  (Do they say cancer killed you if cancer treatment does?)  Might it have been something else?  I'd prefer to wait a day or two to say what killed him. Ryan Vesey 22:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * RD? Why is it up in the RD section? We all seem to be supporting a full blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, Bongwarrior reverted it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: I won't comment on the manner-of-death thing, but I think the "in office" part should be excluded--to note that Nicolás Maduro succeeded him as (Acting) President. Lockesdonkey (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * comment if all we are going to say is that he has died this should go in RD, which is fine with me. Otherwise in office and of cancer are the relevant facts. μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty much agreed on that we only list on RD if the death isn't of high calibre. Otherwise, the blurb doesn't really need extra information to become a blurb. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Of cancer" is relevant, but early. "In office" is important,but I prefer Lockesdonkey's solution of stating that Maduro is succeeding him. Ryan Vesey 22:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we ever put the cause of death in a death blurb, except possibly for assassinations, plane crashes or other misadventures? --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Very rarely, and I think it's best left out. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 23:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * comment There's also the Recent deaths section. --Gerrit CUTEDH 22:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note that, as this is the death of a sitting head of state, we should mention in the blurb who will be the president of Venezuela now. I also think that "President of Venezuela" may be a better link than the generic "Venezuela". Besides, with the huge political effects that this death will cause, I think it's justified to list it as a news event in itself, not just as a "recent death" entry. Cambalachero (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Under the constitution, the head of Venezuela's Congress, Diosdado Cabello, will assume the interim presidency before an election is held." BBC --LukeSurlt c 23:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Pile on Support; death of a head of state/government is notable; his high profile warrants a full listing. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated as of this edit with five sentences and three separate sources. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Obvious strong support, significant figure in world politics who died in office. Article looks good; the update is short but sufficient, appropriate to avoid recentism, and adequately sourced. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 23:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Wonderful news for democracy in Venezuela, obvious support as an event of great significance for the political future of a country. Mocctur (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wonderful news for an elite aristocracy which will now be able to enslave the populace with the death of the peoples sole defender. This is a sad day for the people of Venezuela. --IP98 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the death of a dictator. Democracy may now return to Venezuela. Mocctur (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Chavez was duly elected again and again. The only people calling him a "dictator" are those who stood to loose when he freed the people from tyranny, brought them food and land and a means to make a future for themselves. The people who call him a dictator wanted to keep Venezuelas wealth for themselves. Chavez was a hero and a freedom fighter, he will be missed. --IP98 (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Only by the totalitarians. Mocctur (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * totalitarians The common people of Venezuela who saw literacy and food production increase under Chavez? Yep, they'll miss him. I think the people celebrating are laissez-faire "economists" who measure wealth in terms of food they can take from the mouths of babies. This is indeed a day for sadness for Venezuela. --IP98 (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Venezuela is a democratic country. Chávez was elected in 1998, and was subsequently elected all over again; he did not force anybody out of their office. (Well, he attempted to in 1992, but he and the army failed) The US has always called Venezuela under Chávez a dictatorship just because he did not want Americans to mess with his stuff. Lester Foster (talk &#124; talk) 23:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment suggest including "in office" in blurb since that's a fairly rare event. Agree that "of cancer", though likely, is speculative and best left out. --IP98 (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we cut the ideological crap and deal with the fact that the death section, even now, has five sentences, and more than three sources, and post this? μηδείς (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's marked as ready. Needs someone to post. I think it's too late for TRM, but Tariq might be around. --IP98 (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 23:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we add a picture of him?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I second that request. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bold links can go to Death and state funeral of Hugo ChávezLihaas (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're better off linking to the main article, at least at present. It contains more useful information on who he was, which is what readers will be interested in (rather than a long list of reaction quotes). His manner of death is not the ITN story here, but the end of his eventful life. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. We could have 2 bold articles, 2. on Friday the funeral will have more and pics i guess (nestor kirchner did)Lihaas (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Dow Jones

 * Oppose - Purely a psychological barrier and not indicative of any lasting long-term change in the economy.--WaltCip (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose would we post it if/when it goes even higher tomorrow? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that the last time it reached this height was exactly before the Great Recession. Of course it's not expected we would post if it would break the record again in a few weeks.  --hydrox (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral we post sports records all the time, we can at least consider this. If Sachin Tendulkar batting 100 centuries in cricket was notable enough for WP:Main, then so is this. Maybe like the case of Tendulkar (100), we should wait for a totally arbitrary round number like 15000. Or we can pick some arbitrary round period of time, like we did when Lionel Messi kicked a ball into a net the "most times" in calendar year. Highest points gain in a quarter maybe? My point is we can't dump on the DJIA and then fawn over sports records. --IP98 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Major local and global impact, as the last time it was this high was exactly before the Great Recession. Thus this is a major watershed in the current economic recovery (both locally in the US and globally), and as such being widely circulated in all media. --hydrox (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose after four years of inflationary pressure the Dow Jones number is...inflated. Of course food, gas, gold and commodities are all at even greater highs--the actual comparative buying value of the Dow has not recovered. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * --IP98 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How about QE1. QE2, and QE3?--WaltCip (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Need WP:RS that "the actual comparative buying value of the Dow has not recovered", not WP:OR that QE has resulted only in inflation. --IP98 (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't be disingenuous. You presumably read the source for this article yourself which attributes the gains to fed pumping and higher profits (i.e., prices) not economic growth.  You are quite free to look up gold, gasoline, food and commodities prices yourself--no one has anything to prove to you--this isn't an argument forum. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's not an argument forum. Fortunately WP is a cluocracy and the posting admins are free to disregard opposes citing original research and silly cartoons. --IP98 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the important part is not the record itself, but that the index has recovered completely after the recession. Nergaal (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dont agree with the comparision with a sporting achivement, this record does not involve a achement and as The Rambling Man points out when would this one stop.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   19:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read any of the articles? The news is not really that DJ is breaking a record, but that they are back up at the pre-2008 levels. --hydrox (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Great for Wall Street, no change in the status of all us regular folks who don't have extensive portfolios. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The prices have got this high for no reason other than the belief that they will get higher.  There is no predictable longevity for this record.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. If you look at the chart (right), rising share prices are the norm with the exception of recessions. The thrust of this story should be that it is a recovery to pre-Financial crisis of 2007–2008 levels. Thus I support, but only with an altblurb (suggested) that adds this caveat. LukeSurlt c 19:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a little more reasonable, but it would still be a recovery of pre-crash prices in dollars, which themselves have lost value, not a recovery of underlying worth. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless they had a parade. Did they have a parade? Got any pictures of the "Highest Ever" parade? I'll support if there is a parade. DAMMIT! I WANT A PARADE!!!! Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the reasons given. Additionally, if it is higher tomorrow, it will break the record again rendering this note moot. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Besides 331dot's good point, this doesn't appear to be even close to being an issue of worldwide importance. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Dow is just 30 stocks. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, arbitrary, technical and meaningless number, which doesn't even have much relation to the actual state of the economy. Comparisons with sporting records are inappropriate, apples and oranges. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 23:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per above. By the way, if it breaks a record again tomorrow will we post it?75.73.114.111 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Müslüm Gürses (RD)

 * I have read the article but I don't know enough about Turkish music to know if he was notable in it as a field; he was popular but notability isn't just about popularity. For now I weak oppose this as I don't believe he was notable in the field of music as a whole; I am open to revising my opinion. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * His life and music was studied by sociomusicologists. e.g. C. Işık & N. Erol, Arabeskin Anlam Dünyası: Müslüm Gürses Örneği, Istanbul: Bağlam, 2002. It is difficult to find sources about arabesque music in English. --Eng-men (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment before going up, the article needs a copyedit to clean up stuff like "However, Müslüm Gürses remained all the time silent and resentful because of his father's doing.". Probably the main contributor is ESL but it still needs to be tuned up. --IP98 (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral looking for evidence that he passed ITN/DC #2. Audience members cutting themselves sounds like he had a dedicated following, but I'm looking for "widely regarded". --IP98 (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unopposed He seems to have been a popular star but neither the Turkish article (which seems to be either translated from, or, more likely, the source of the English article) nor the Turkish press describe him as award-winning, a top performer, or the like. The article is updated, and the grammatical and style issues could be fixed with an hour's worth of work. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, at least until there is evidence of major awards, or proof that he was the top selling artist, over an extended period, within his genre. Kevin McE (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] The Pirate Bay to be Headquartered in N. Korea
To the general community: I haven't edited in quite a long time due to being mostly among nomadic tribes these last 2 years so I am unfamiliar with the new system here at ITN but I felt this was odd enough to merit attention here, forgive me for any oversight.

- Apparently Kim Jong-Un himself invited the leaders of The Pirate Bay to move their servers or at least cache their site location within the territorial borders of North Korea so as to protect the organization from attacks by companies seeking copyright damages. The irony here is that a dictatorial country like N. Korea is now apparently offering safe haven to an organization which has dedicated themselves to a sense of the freedom of information, without discussion about the truth of their claims... It is also reported that TPB leaders will be involved in talks with N. Korea leadership regarding letting the people of N. Korea have access to TPB's services.

This is just an odd one so I'll let the community decide if it merits posting or even any discussion.

link is here: http://thepiratebay.se/blog

Cwill151 (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is true; rather, it's just a funny hoax (because of the irony of the move). According to CNET, "the service is actually using some sort of IP spoofing. This spoofing makes it seem like the links are coming out of North Korea when they are really being hosted by a site from somewhere in Europe." Anyway, this is interesting, but I'm going to have to oppose. It's not quite ITN material because even if the move were to happen, the tangible effects would likely be very negligible.  Spencer T♦ C 05:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Only registers as "news" for a small part of internet culture, not widely reported. LukeSurlt c 09:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LukeSurl. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral For reasons unknown we posted "kim-dot-com" getting busted for megadownload.com (or upload or whatever the hell that spam banner disaster fake link nightmare site was called). We could probably post this if it was true. Neutral for now per Spencer. Support if covered in a WP:RS. --IP98 (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Guardian have an article that generally confirms Spencer's hoax statement. --LukeSurlt c 12:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, oppose for now. Looks like a hoax. Hang in there guys! --IP98 (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * TPB confirms it was a hoax. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Challenge to uncertainty principle

 * Oppose, don't believe the hype. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:46, k4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you be a little more specific? I'm no expert, but the findings are being published by Nature are being reported by science news sources (i.e. not mainstream media) as stated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "They repeated the process several times in order to build up accurate statistics." --In other words, they did not measure a particle. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article was not even published in Nature. Nergaal (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are wrong about that. It will appear in the relevant Nature published journal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically you're both right: it does not appear in Nature (the journal) but it is published by Nature (the publishing group) in a journal called Nature Photonics. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 23:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ever seen this? The closer you get to the source of this information, the less spectacular the language becomes. It is not purported by the researchers that they have in any way disproved the uncertainty principle. Instead they have used very smart methods to get around some limitations that the principle was previously assumed to impose. Capturing the subtleties of this is probably beyond the article, let alone a one-sentence ITN blurb. --LukeSurlt c 17:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I was in no way trying to imply they disproved the principle. I think challenging some aspects (limitations) of it is still significant, but I could be wrong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is this like faster than light neutrinos that turn out to be not actually faster than light? To coin a phrase "Explanation of significance please?" The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose until definitive. I'd suggest a DYK entry, though. 128.214.79.61 (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I feel I ought to oppose, but I can't be certain . (Sorry, someone had to say it!) <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #A00000;padding:1px;"> An  optimist on the  run!    09:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As far as I can tell, this does not overcome any aspect of the Uncertainty Principle. It's actually an approach to the measurement problem, by using a 'weak measurement' to ensure that the wavefunction does not collapse until the second (conjugate) variable is measured. But weak measurement only works for large statistical ensembles. This would make an interesting but technical article in, say, Physics World or New Scientist, but not ITN on Wikipedia. (However, I haven't been able to read the original paper, just the news reports and press releases.) <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a well reasoned explanation to your oppose. No cartoons or sarcasm. This thank-you isn't sarcasm either, I really mean it. --IP98 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth: The paper is here --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I found it, I just don't have access to a Nature subscription. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 23:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support pending update FWIW it's not up to us to determine the veracity of stories published in reliable sources. It seems to me that an important scientific discovery was made, and may be more important in the long run than a non-dead pope. I'm a PHP programmer, not a physicist, so I'm not going to stand on a soap box and yell "you suck" at people who are. The article needs an update though, and to go on WP:Main I think it needs one that a lay-reader could figure out pretty easily after clicking the bold link. --IP98 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

HIV 'cure'

 * I already added it to HIV/AIDS and User:Jmh649 removed it and said not to as the media isn't a reliable source, see the page history and talk page. So oppose from me as an ITN bulletin unless someone disagrees with Jmh649 and thinks it does belong there. -- occono (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did add it to Media portrayal of HIV/AIDS, so if that page is considered good enough for being linked to on the main page, then I don't oppose.-- occono (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment My understanding of the story was that she was cured using standard drug therapy, which perhaps should be the main focus of this nomination. I'm unsure about how to portray this on the main page without falling afoul of it being misinterpreted as medical advice.  It's a good, happy story though so I'd be happy to support with the right wording. CaptRik (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment Portal:Current Events has this listed on 3/3. --IP98 (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, "lotta press" on a slow news day, and story is bullshit. Girl was born to mother with AIDS, given high doses of drugs. Now she has no sign of the virus, but there is no evidence she ever had the virus. This case only was discovered because the mother stopped giving the kid her meds, so they had to test the kid. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's just wrong. The child did have positive HIV blood tests from samples taken shortly after birth .  They started treating her as if she had HIV even before the blood work was available to prove it (which is one of the differences here, since traditionally infants aren't treated until after the blood work comes back positive), but nonetheless there was confirmation that HIV was present early on and is apparently not active now.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is all reported in a non-peer reviewed conference talk (or poster). The positive test after birth may have been wrong, especially if it was a quick-and-dirty ELISA -- I can't even find the abstract of the presentation. This seems to me to fail WP:V, not WP:N.  Abductive  (reasoning) 17:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that hard to find the abstract:  Dragons flight (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If memory serves me, positive tests for maternal antibodies in newborns have subsequently turned negative over time. Is that the case here? Certainly not seeing where this amounts to an active and practical cure. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * They found HIV genetic material in the infant, including positive HIV tests from blood taken at 2 days, 6 days, 12 days and 20 days after birth. By 29 days the viral load was undetectable on standard tests, which is a fairly typical reaction to antiretroviral therapy.  For adults, an undetectable viral load is not a cure, because the virus will quickly rebound if antiretroviral drugs are discontinued.  In this case, therapy was discontinued at 18 months, and yet the virus remained undetectable on standard tests even a year later.  Ultrasensitive tests conducted on the child 6-12 months after the end of therapy found minute traces of HIV RNA, but at levels that were considered not indicative of an active infection.  Essentially, the child remained at a healthy state similar to what antiretrovirals can accomplish but without apparently needing any additional drugs.  They are calling it a "functional cure", on the basis that if the virus has not rebounded by now then there is a good chance that it will never do so and that the child may remain healthy indefinitely.  Dragons flight (talk)
 * No peer-reviewed source yet. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway, this "functional" cure relies too much on accident and happenstance. The mother didn't get pre-natal care and the rural hospital in Mississippi didn't give antiretrovirals, so the real hospital gave a huge dose two days later (enough time to allow the virus to have been introduced at birth). If the virus was introduced at birth, then this is rather like a needlestick injury to a healthcare worker--they are typically given big doses, and the virus dies off before establishing itself in the CD4<SUP>+</SUP> T cells. Then the "mother" runs away with the kid, and stops giving antiretrovirals, until the authorities capture her. Now they have to test (in order to charge the "mother" with various felonies) and they find a nearly undetectable viral load. So this is totally not a situation in which a person with HIV is cured. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead author of the study explicitly rejected the post-exposure prophylaxis interpretation on the basis of the early blood tests showing an established viral load, not something you see in needlestick patients who successfully avoid seroconversion. Also, the Berlin patient, who you just linked to, is also described as a "functional cure" because traces of the virus are still detectable in his body but the infection doesn't progress, though in his case the reason for the functional cure is clearer.  There was some hope that the Berlin patient might have been a complete (or "steralizing") cure, though that was later found not to be the case.  Lastly, there is no indication that the mother was "captured" or accused of any crime, and to suggest such would be a violation of WP:BLP.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Apparently the bullshit is that peer reviewed journals are a standard to be used for measuring the validity of medical news. Comedy. PS: It's not up to us to determine veracity of stories published in reliable sources. --IP98 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is up to the editors of Wikipedia to decide if something meets WP:V. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Maybe you should check out Verifiability, not truth --IP98 (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. It actually has been peer-reviewed: . No opinion on posting. Formerip (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a talk at a conference, and the reviewing which abstracts are accepted as talks is not the same as peer-review for a journal. Grant applications are also 'peer reviewed', but again it's not the same thing. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Whilst a remarkable case, apparently some people really can recover to the point where viral infection is at undetectable levels, and this has been known about for years . It was removed from our article on AIDS because of this, so we won't even have an update. I don't think this is the breakthrough that some of the media seem to be making out. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the HIV epidemic has two facets: the terminal nature of the disease, and the communicability. This (and other, older developments) addresses the first facet only.  This person will probably not die from pneumonia or organ failure or any of the other common infections that eventually overcome HIV patients.  However, communicability is another problem entirely, and I highly suspect that this person would be able to communicate the infection.  Due to the biological nature of the virus, even "small amounts of viral RNA, undetectable in clinical tests" can lead to infection, so long as it's a full-length RNA and it finds its way to a new host.  The "new" portions of this news are already known from other cases, and the "new" portions of this news do not address the second, as yet unresolved, facet.  On a personal level, it's great news for the baby, and I would actually really like to get articles such as HIV to the frontpage, but it would be better suited for FA, I think.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.79.61 (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cure or fluke? Researchers question HIV results -- Abductive  (reasoning) 05:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013 Karachi bombing

 * Comment - terrorist attacks are quite common in Pakistan these days, so I would like to see a justification for posting other than just the death toll (which is only 3rd largest of 2013). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have to agree. Were this posted, at that rate we might expect 18 bombings listings for the year in Pakistan alone. We should probably also take into consideration whether any of the victims had prior notability in their own right. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - the significance of major events like this should not be diminished by similar events that had occurred before. This is a major terrorist attack that killed dozens. The blurb should probably mention that the attack targeted the Shia minority. -Zanhe (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - any article which deals with such a large number of deaths should get a mention at ITN, however the article is at a stub stage, would be better if it is a bit longer.LegalEagle (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Abdelhamid Abou Zeid killed
Well, we'll need to wait for some kind of independent confirmation, but right now, Chadian troops are "claiming" they've killed Mokhtar Belmokhtar. It's being widely "reported" but then this has happened before.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't speak to the notability and have no opinion of this nomination at this poinr, but a death in a military action would normally get a full blurb due to the wider context. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Shouldn't this be combined with the recent death of Abdelhamid Abou Zeid? --Hegvald (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Blurb yes, this should be made a full listing: Chadian military forces announce they have killed Mokhtar Belmokhtar and Abdelhamid Abou Zeid in the North Mali conflict with the Mali conflict as the updated article. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I like. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon? What is this "fuckpot" comment?  What does "fruitnful as this shit" mean?  I suggested that I liked the reword of the blurb.  Lihaas, you need to retract your comment.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, I would really like to have some independent confirmation before posting this. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, per the nomination " we'll need to wait for some kind of independent confirmation".... You don't need to repeat it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Explanation of significance please? --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Zeid was the occupier of Timbuktou and destroyer of its shrines. Belmokhtar headed the Algerian refinery siege where 800 hostages were taken and 39 Westerners killed.  Fox news (don't know who wrote the piece) said they were the two pillers of Al Qeada in Africa. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Proof?Or is it recentism sensationalist media?Lihaas (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no Americans in Bagdad and we have killed them? μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Updated see this section.
 * Support (just to make that clear) μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Big loss for the Islamists. Article updated.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, significant impact on current conflict. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral The top lieutenant of Al Qaeda in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/wherever seems to get killed by security forces every other week. I think it's a slippery slope deciding which of Al Qaeda's regional middle men are significant, and which aren't. I also see the significance of the ringleader of the In Amenas hostage crisis, so neutral. Strong oppose RD if suggested (it's not been, but just in case). --IP98 (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * STRONG OPPOSE the tv media (cnn, al jaxZ_) are only reporting chadian claims thereof. There is not affirmation. See both sources. Chad also has a COI in claiming this as it is leading the n. mali operations claining success justifies further opeerations
 * Source 1 says "Chais says..." source 2 reads "'killed...'" in quotes.Lihaas (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, to reiterate for the third time, that's why the nomination says we should wait for independent confirmation. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Question What would qualify as "independent confirmation"? --IP98 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps Al Qaeda or the UN or similar. But I'm guessing that there are certain elements operating here that wouldn't accept anything.  As a reminder, the proposed blurb did say "announce they have killed", nothing more.  Ho hum, I'll take my "fuckpot comment"s away from this nom right now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment, his militants refused the claim, as reported by Reuters. The agency emphasized that there were former false reports of his death. Egeymi (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An appearance would be a disproof, that's what they normally do. There are ongoing DNA tests on Zeid's corpse. This should be posted once either claim is verified since it's the wider military action that makes this notable. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Addition, The Independent also says that it is the eighth report of his death. Killing both militans together was also questioned since they were rivals. Egeymi (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Confirmed France 24 is reporting the death of Zeid has been confirmed, but that of Belmokhtar is being denied. I have created an updated altblurb and suggest we post that now.  It can be updated if Belmokhtar's death is confirmed. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready I have updated the target article and marked this as ready. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Major milestone in an ongoing conflict, and I'm taking the confirmation on good faith. Good, timely article which is exactly the sort of content we should be highlighting. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: I'll post, but I have a quick question about the blurb: should al-Qaeda link to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb or al-Qaeda?  Spencer T♦ C 23:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 00:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have no opposition to the posting, but I think it would be a good idea to directly state that it's Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in the blurb, rather than simply having that become clear in the link. AQIM is a separate organization from what most people think of when they hear "Al-Qaeda", being a formerly completely-different group which (to use a crude analogy) was given a license to use the Al-Qaeda "brand" for the terroristic equivalent of "marketing." I therefore move that the blurb be changed to "AQIM confirms..." rather than "Al-Qaeda confirms..." for reasons of accuracy. Lockesdonkey (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer using "Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb" instead of AQIM, since I don't think the latter is a well-known abbreviation. Would it start with "The Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb confirms..." or "Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb confirms..."?  Spencer T♦ C 06:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not hugely opposed, but it's extremely wordy and the press is certainly just saying AQ in their headlines. I don't think there's any huge damage done to our readers with a concise piping as is. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not use the initialism "AQIM"? As I recall, we've done that before. Lockesdonkey (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Update A search of "belmokhtar confirmed" at google news is giving only 4 and 5 day old articles "unable to confirm". μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

South African police death

 * Oppose for now. Unfortunately police violence is quite common both in South Africa and other nations; I would be willing to support if major riots or other demonstrations occur because of this.  Spencer T♦ C 16:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated The article is sufficiently updated. This seems more notorious than notable. The video makes it unusual but "lurid" is not one of the ITN criteria. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Medeis summarises it nicely. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose But please take it to DYK. Ryan Vesey 21:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] 2013 Sequestration

 * Something like this (the debt ceiling, the financial cliff) seems to happen every other month now. I'll abstain from !voting this time because I've made a concious effort not to follow the news for this tiresome iteration. LukeSurlt c 16:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. US financial health has big consequences for the world economy. As LukeSurl indicates, there has been a whole row of mostly Republican-manufactured debt-crisises, so you could argue that it is "standard". But since this one seems to actually go into effect, unlike the manufactured debt-ceiling crisis which it is an extension of, I think it is news. Thue (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's no there there. μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, but the article needs expansion in the Economic effects section, as that is what makes the sequester a big deal. GDP information is given, but it would be really nice to see how this will affect the debt to GDP ratio in the article.  In addition, how will this affect scientific/technological research?  UPenn is reporting a 34-42 million dollar hit .  When you extrapolate that over all of the universities receiving federal funding (of course, many universities are receiving less currently), it's a massive hit to research in the country. Ryan Vesey 16:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a law that was passed two years ago by the Congress and the President. Its going into effect is not news.  If there's some sort of major settlement we could possibly post that, when it happens.  Listing it before something happens would be like announcing nightly that Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The impact of sequestration is not immediate. Things will simply go wrong economically at a steeper trajectory than if Congress hadn't come up with this stupid idea two years ago – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was the president's idea.--WaltCip (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Separate but equal branches == separate but equal blame --IP98 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Congress passes bills for the president to sign. Don't want a bill, don't ask the president to sign it. Don't like the bill you were given, don't sign it. It doesn't matter, but hey. --IP98 (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose If the nominator hopes for this to be taken seriously, it would help if we knew what is to be/has been sequestered by whom from whom.  Some sort of blurb suggestion might have helped achieve that. A brief glimpse at the article gives the impression that some country or other is experiencing budget cutbacks. I think most countries have had the same, and reject the suggestion that we should post one among so many.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as Kevin says, this is just one of many countries suffering cutbacks, austerity measures, debt crises etc. No biggie.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The US still is 1/5th of the world's economy, a Europe/China sized behemoth (approximately), and the cuts are 0.1% of world GDP. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose as others have explained "No biggie".  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   20:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "No biggie" is blatantly wrong. We're looking at a decrease in the GDP growth rate from 2% to 1.5%.  There are some reports of a drop to 1%.  $85 billion in cuts is not "no biggie". Ryan Vesey 20:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I oppose posting this as I said, but I very much agree with Ryan and disagree with those saying "no biggie". This is potentially devastating economically, though not in a way that lends itself to ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as there is no consensus on the effects of this slow-motion event. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per Muboshgu, Kevin McE, and others.75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose And yes, this is no big deal. The federal government is being asked to cut a mere pittance of its budget.--WaltCip (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I could link the studies that show the potential impact, which would be severe, but then I might start thinking about my vote. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not as big a deal as it sounds, and this sort of thing is going on in many places. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment We posted austerity measures passing in Spain or Italy or the UK or some EU country or other as part of last years "OMG EU debt is supr newz" craze. I would have supported the US version of the same thing if the fiscal cliff had actually taken full effect, instead of being turned into this last minute piece meal drama-a-thon. We'll likely have another round of debt ceiling sillyness later this year, and without a clear cut event to post, there is nothing really suitable for a blurb. --IP98 (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support iff it happens, but oppose if a deal is done. Significant austerity measure in a major economy. Obviously we would need an informative blurb and an updated article, which will probably take a while as deadline passes and the reactions roll in. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The cuts are 85,000 million dollars out of a 1,100,000 million dollar deficit, less than 2% of the entire budget, and they have been scheduled for a year and a half-plus. While the entire budget is 20% bigger than it was when Obama took office.  This is hardly news, just politics, and bad politics. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it less than 2%, have we passed $4.27 trillion budgets already?Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose No article, no blurb, therefore nothing to consider. 3142 (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Lahad Datu standoff

 * Support: highly unusual and significant clash. -Zanhe (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as per above, but the 15 figure can't be found in the article currently. --LukeSurlt c 21:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I want to support, but the blurb gives fifteen while the infobox gives twelve. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do believe the standoff has ended; at least that is what the police were saying in the article I read earlier today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note Late last night there were reports of 15 dead (12 from the Sulu sultanate and 2 from the Malaysian police) but I guess they've sorted things out already. Reworded the blurb. – H T  D  04:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Deaths still aren't in the text proper, it looks like. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: and I added an alternative blurb. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, notable event that highlights a notable conflict in the background. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're happy with this blurb, we're ready to post. LukeSurlt c 15:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted with a slightly different blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment maybe drop the "multiple-week-long" from the blurb? It seems a little long to me. Or it could be fine. Just IMO. --IP98 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; I think the blurb should be revised so that it differentiates the group attempting to assert dominance over the affected regions from the actual Sultanate of Sulu. Casual readers may be confused as to how a 19th century sultanate is currently embroiled in a conflict with the Malaysian government when it apparently hasn't existed as an independent state of any sort since 1917. Worse yet, a simple glance at the blurb might create the false impression that there is currently a self-governing entity known as the Sultanate of Sulu &mdash; for instance, people may walk away believing that it is an autonomous territory within the modern state of Malaysia. Kurtis (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not
 * "At least 12 people die during a gunfight between the supporters of one of the pretenders of the Sultan of Sulu and the Royal Malaysia Police in Lahad Datu, Sabah."? It's quite longer, though.
 * There are also discussions on renaming the article as it no longer a standoff right now. – H T  D  10:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that would work. I have no opinion as to whether or not the article should be renamed. Kurtis (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the blurb. Let me know if there are further problems with it (an article rename would not require the blurb to change). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's proper to call them rebels. "Invaders" may be a more valid word but that's putting too much credit on them. It's more proper to call them a "private army". – H  T  D  17:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)